Hi Marco,
It is that time of the year when there is some time to do some hacking.
Looking at the CLNET repositories I manage, I noticed two things.
The first one is that there may be a GitLab limit on the number of repositories that one can have under her/his name.
That's correct, but the admins can help you raise the limit, if you need, or create new groups (which don't have this limit).
The second is that I have several "legacy" repositories with their own "group" and some newer ones without. (Plus there is the issue of separate repositories for documentation, but I can live with that).
Yes. That's how I set up GitLab when we set it up: in the "old days" there were directories per project. Some directories had one repository, some had multiple. The structure in GitLab that allowed the same setup was to create a group per project and import the repositories from the on-disk project directory. There's another reason to set it up this way: all repositories need to be allocated to either a user or a group. This actually maps nicely from GitHub as well, I think, which has the option to create organizations (groups) or user accounts; either can have repositories.
Since the original setup of our GitLab instance, GitLab has added the concept of "nested groups": groups-in-a-group. I've never seriously considered it for anything, but it's a functionality that we have available if we want it.
Please bear with me. I am not a GitLab expert and I am not running the show.
No problem! Happy to be challenged or simply requested for an explanation. If there's a better way, I'm all for it!
I would like to know how we could go ahead and make it possible to "consolidate" "projects" and "repositories" in CLNET GitLab.
Could you explain a bit what you're looking to achieve? I'm not sure what the result looks like when "projects and repositories" are consolidated.
The idea would be to have something similar to Github "organizations".
Sure. I *think* I set it up that way, using groups. Does the explanation concerning my reasoning help your thoughts?
Is this something that you think could benefit CLNET?
Regards,