-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 934
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Team accounts? #2258
Comments
Hello, I'm thinking for long time to something similar and related (AFAIK already used in npm) to provide scoped packages. For example 🤔 That should potentially make typo squatting a little harder (or easier). |
+1 I also see value in introducing the concept of organizations/teams to rubygems.org. |
It would also be useful to avoid the dependency confusion attack recently in the news. If you own a namespace on rubygems - and can properly protect it with 2fa - you know that namespace is safe (or at least safer) from typeosquatting, or private/public dependency name confusion. |
@mrdaniellewis you can still typeosquat on namespace name 🤷 |
But a mistake on the namespace name less likely and more obvious then one on the package name. I've seen at least one person recommand you use namespaced names on npm to help avoid issues like the ones raised here https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610 Obviously it wouldn't be a panacea, or even the main reason for doing this. |
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
I'm not sure whether this should be posted as a GitHub issue or in Google Groups. Let me know if I should move it! 🙏
Background: I'm part of the @solidusio core team, and we manage a lot of gems (the ones that make up Solidus core + all the community-maintained extensions).
It would be extremely useful for us to have some sort of built-in organization/team functionality that allows us to assign permissions in bulk rather than having to add core team members to each gem one by one. This would be very similar to how GitHub organizations work: gems belong to an organization, and all members of that organization have access to its gems.
After a cursory look at the GitHub issues and Google Groups, I was surprised to find that this doesn't seem to have been discussed before — or perhaps I'm missing something?
If there's interest around this feature, I could try to work on a spike, but I want to make sure this isn't something that's been discussed and rejected before, or implemented in some other form.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: