• DrM@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know that you are probably not the one who came up with this shit but just… why? Why would you do that?

    Don’t you know that git has so called branches?

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The setup could make sense, if there’s a separate repo that’s pull only. Our ops guys pull our ArgoCD repo, so we can do the actually work, but they control what’s deployed on production.

      However, this seems not to be the case here.

      • DrM@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But… also in ArgoCD you just set up which branch you want to look at

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but Gitlab doesn’t allow for easy access rules.

          Basically, OPS wants full control of the repo, since they are the ones being blamed if something goes wrong. There’s no way to enforce, that only a certain set of users can make changes to a branch - all such restrictions can be circumvented rather easily. So the solution is a shadow copy of the repo that only gets updated on release and Argo only deploys a specific tag (i.e. release).

          We’re not talking about just some enterprise microservice, but stuff in the public administration/government sphere. The tradeoffs are a bit different there.

          • DrM@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t know that GitLab doesn’t allow that! We use BitBucket and there it’s extremely easy to put branch restrictions so that only certain Usergroups are allowed to merge into the release-branches