Add a new status indicating repos are provided by the official organization of its kind

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. As an official Tekton Catalog maintainer, I would like to differentiate Tekton Catalog repos provided by the official Tekton organization (official catalog) from other Tekton Catalog repos(community catalog) in the Artifact Hub.

However, this definition of the above official does not align with the official status in Artifact Hub. Such inconsistency in the definition of “official” could bring a lot of confusion to both Tekton and Artifact Hub users.

Describe the solution you’d like I would like to request another label/status (like “Trusted”, “Official Source”…)to indicate that a specific repo is provided by official provider of the repo kind technology (e.g. only the official Tekton catalog provider can claim such label/status)

Describe alternatives you’ve considered Technically this request can be supported in the current definition of official status (in a hacky way) as it is granted manually, where Tekton official catalog provider can explicitly ask Artifact Hub maintainers to reject any Tekton kind official status request from other repo providers. However such inconsistency in the definition of official could bring a lot of confusion to both Tekton and Artifact Hub users.

Additional context The Tekton community is working on adding support tier to Tekton catalog tasks/pipelines. In summary, we plan to only mark catalog repos in this specific org as “official” catalog. Other contributors are welcome to bring their own catalog repo, and such catalog will be treated as “community” catalog.

This new label/status would also be beneficial for other repository kinds that are in a similar situation, like Keda, Keptn, Kubewarden, etc.

[tegioz]

Hi @QuanZhang-William 👋

That text was written with Helm charts and OLM operators in mind, and probably needs to be extended to make it more comprehensive and cover new cases 😇

I think we can better answer this (or at least what that definition tries to convey) with a few examples.

If HashiCorp was to publish and maintain a Tekton task with the same functionality as terraform-cli, published by Tekton, which one should be the official one? Or if Aqua security did the same for the trivy-scanner one? Those are the organizations behind that software, the ones who actually own it. And IMHO they deserve the option of claiming the official status for a package that’s focused on their software.

The current definition may fit better for Helm charts like I said. But let’s look at it the other way around. If there were two Helm charts to install the Tekton dashboard, one provided by the Tekton organization and one provided by the Helm organization, which one should be the official? According to the current definition, it’d be the one provided by the Tekton organization, regardless the Helm organization is behind the charts technology.

Maybe we can consider redefining what official means for each repository kind, but I’m concerned this may end up confusing both users and organizations.

Hope this helps and makes sense 🙂

[tegioz]

Thanks @vdemeester 👍

I’ll close this issue for now then, please feel free to reopen if needed 🙂