►
From YouTube: Pods and Workspace discussion
Description
We've discussed https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/102172#note_1151684131
A
A
A
B
A
So
Mike
you
asked
me:
is
this:
the
entity
I
think
this
is
the
organization
entity
that
I'm
proposing
the
same
object.
The
workspace
team
is
working
on
or
a
separate
entity.
I
think
it
can
be
the
same.
That's
sort
of
my
first,
my
first
thing,
because
we
are
looking
at
this
from
a
from
an
infrastructure
perspective
where
our
think
our
main
requirement
is
that
we
hope
to
be
able
to
group
things
together
and
keep
them
on
a
pod.
That's
kind
of
the
main,
the
main
thing
I
think
from
a
workspace
perspective.
A
If
I
understood
both
of
you
correctly,
you
need
to
decide
where
to
put
settings
right
if
they
should
be
at
the
group
level
or
at
the
workspace
level
and
if
instance,
level
settings
should
move.
So
that's
a
big
thing
and
for
for
fulfillment
they
want
to
be
able
to
Bill
people
sort
of
one
layer
above
a
top
level
group.
They
want
to
be
able
to
say,
like
you
have
multiple
top
level
groups,
they
will
build.
You
for
one
and
so
having
one
entity
whatever
it's
called.
A
C
B
C
Group
workspace
right
the
get
lab
group
entity,
Christina
and
I,
and
the
associated
Engineers
as
tasked
with
organizing
how
the
organizations
are
organized,
if
that
that's
a
lot
of
organizations
in
there,
but
so
yeah
billing
settings
that
stuff
are
components
of
them,
but
also
generally
the
structure
of
how
things
are
presented
to
the
user.
The
tools
that
organizations
need
to
organize
themselves.
Essentially,
groups
projects,
user
management
settings.
A
B
A
The
top
level
group,
special
and
I
think
all
of
those
things
that
you
just
spoke
of
are
the
special
things
that
make
that
group
kind
of
different
to
all
the
other
groups,
yeah
and
so
I
think
you
can
think
of
it.
As
two
like
in
two
ways,
you
can
say
like
well
we're
going
to
take
this
top
level
group
and
we're
going
to
turn
it
into
a
workspace
or
we're
going
to
take
this
specific
part
move.
B
B
C
And
I
would
qualify
that
as
more
of
a
migration.
Yes,
implementation,
then
then,
whether
it
changes
the
actual
outcome
of
the
structure.
If,
if
someone
is
starting
new
in
git,
lab
post
workspaces
launch
I,
don't
think
that
world
changes
for
them.
When
we
talk
about,
are
we
going
to
transform
top
level
groups,
or
are
we
going
to
put
something
new
on
top
of
it?
That's
because
these
things
exist
today,
like
how
are
we
going
to
present
this
to
the
users
when
they
need
to
make
the
change?
C
A
B
A
Essentially,
have
a
relatively
strict
wall
surrounding
all
the
things
that
belong
to
either
workspace
or
an
organization
to
put
it
on
a
single
part
and
not
allow
a
lot
of
interactions
between
those
things,
sacrificing
potentially
some
social
functions.
How
that
works?
You
know
in
detail
and
the
user
experience
of
that
is.
B
C
Organization,
they're
in
what
what
they're
doing
both
whether
it's,
whether
it's
within
your
organization
like
within
your
own
company,
we'll
say,
let's
not
use,
word
organization
within
your
own
company.
There
are
times
when,
if
we
take
top
level
groups
as
what
would
what
would
be
a
workspace
there,
we
know
like
within
companies.
Users
are
crossing
over
those
workspaces
as
well,
but
also
outside.
You
know,
Community
contributions
and
things
like
that.
Yeah
there's
there's
a
number
of
of
reasons.
A
Ups
right,
I
think
this
is
a
valid
questions
like
if
we
had
these
capabilities
that
we're
discussing
now,
would
we
just
have
created
a
gitlab.com
gitlab
and
be
done
with
it
right?
That's
you
know,
I,
don't
know,
that's
a
migration
question
of
how
we
would
sign
up
new
users
right.
It
will
become
part
of
the
path.
There's
a
lot
of
interesting
questions
surrounding
that,
but
ultimately
I
mean
this
is
a
question
for
you
and
something
that
I'm
trying
to
like
figure
out,
because.
A
Difficulties
here,
right,
I
think
the
the
remote
development
environment
group
I,
don't
quite
know
what
they're
correct
name
is
they're
thinking
about
using
the
term
workspace
as
well
you're
using
it
I'm,
not
using
it
I'm
using
organization,
so
I'm
trying
to
sort
of
figure
out
if
we
can
make
a
simple
proposal
sort
of
for
now
that
we
can
change
if
we
gather
more
data
that
says
this
is
this
is
not
not
right.
That
would
look
like
this.
A
You
know
we
put
an
organization
at
the
top
that
would
replace
the
term
workspace
that
you
are
using
for
what
you're
doing
that
would
be
an
organization
below
that
are
groups.
You
know
they've
lost
all
of
the
special
top
level
pieces.
They
are
now
at
the
organizational
level
they
have
subgroups
and
projects
and
I
know
that
you
have
you're
reconciling
some
of
those
things
as
well.
A
I
think
that's
completely
Untouched
by
that,
and
then
the
remote
development
environment
can
use
the
term
workspace
for
what
they're
doing,
because
I
think
that's
kind
of
a
standard
that
is
emerging
in
their
field
with
code
spaces
in
the
workspaces
I
think,
then
we
have
a
one
term.
The
organization
which
I
think
would
reflect
what
you're
trying
to
do
right
and
would
essentially
be
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
the
remote
folks
get
the
workspace,
and
we
only
have
one
additional
entity
because
I
completely
agree.
I
don't
want
to
have
two.
C
I
would
want
to
wait
until
that
research
is
completed
and
then
make
the
decision
changing
the
name.
At
this
point
it
from
workspace
to
organizations
is
just
going
to
cause
a
nightmare
of
bookkeeping
and
updating,
and
it's
going
to
imply
that
we
are
intentionally
making
that
change,
whereas
if
we
wait
until
after
the
research,
we
can
make
an
intentional
change.
Yeah.
B
I
would
be
in
favor
of
I
would
be
in
favor
of
waiting
as
well
until
we
have
the
research
done,
because
there's
also
other
aspects
to
it,
right
that
it's.
It's
already
documented,
like
this
workspace
externally
internally
in
the
documentation,
as
well
as
about
gitbit.com,
so
we've
already
familiarized
customers
that
we're
speaking
with
in
interviews
right
with
this
term.
As
this
thing
that
will
become,
then
you
higher
level
organizational
helper
tool,
plus
it
would
have
impact
on
the
team
what
its
name
the
categories.
So
it's
not
a
small
change
to.
A
Read
no,
it's
not
a
small
change,
but
I
I
was
I.
Think
right
now
we
we
also
live
in
a
world
where
we
we
have
different
terms
that
competing
with
each
other
and
I
have
a
slight
bias
for
Action.
You
know
I
said
like
we
can.
We
can
change
it
and
we
can
always
revert
it
until
until
we
wait-
and
you
know-
maybe
it's
going
to
take
us
six
months
to
make
that
decision,
but
that's
something
that
we
can
certainly
discuss
so
like
I,
have
a
preference
for
for
moving
forward.
A
Right
because
what
I
don't
like
I,
don't
think-
and
this
is
important
I-
don't
think
you
need
to
wait
on
anything
that
Parts
is
doing
and
if
we're
philosophically
aligned-
and
we
know
that
we're
talking
about
the
same
thing-
then
that's
I
think
much
more
important,
but
we
need
to
find
a
language
that
we
can
that
we
can
use
together.
You
know
that
would
that
accomplishes
that
and
I
think
this
is
that's
probably
the
first
priority
and
the
second
priority
is:
is
the
name
a
which
is
notoriously
hard
yeah.
C
Yeah
for
me,
I
was
I
was
just
making
sure
that
you
know
the
semantics
in
there
of
we
will
introduce
organizations.
Was
someone
vague
to
me
in
the
sense
of
you
know,
trying
to
nail
down
the
implications
of
that?
If
that
means
that
we
are
going
to
build
one
thing
and
it
is
going
to
be
the
workspace
organization,
slash
container
of
thingy
things,
the
way
Christina
described
it
like
then
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
issues
here
today.
C
A
Don't
think
so
and
I
think
I
mean
this-
is
it's
all
very
abstract,
but
I
think
the
the
main,
the
most
important
thing
that
I
I
think
needs
to
be
understood
is
that
we
want
to
group
things
that
are
currently
top
letter,
namespaces
right
and
that's
the
thing
that
we
need
to
group
right.
So
if
you,
if
we
ended
up,
let's
say
turning
gitlab
Dash
org
into
a
workspace
and
gitlab
dash
com
into
the
second
workspace
for
gitlab,
and
we
would
have
no
way
of
grouping
those
to
gitlab
The
Entity.
A
You
know
that
I
think
would
be
a
problem
for
us
right.
I
think
that's
the
that's
the
Crux
of
the
meta,
which
is
why
I'm
saying
like
it
needs
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
above
what
is
currently
there
right
and
in
the
future.
You
know.
Maybe
you
know
the
the
entity
at
that
level
becomes
part
of
the
path.
I
don't
know,
but
that's
the
important
the
important
thing
for
me,
because
we
need
this.
This
grouping,
but.
C
B
A
Yeah
I
mean
that's
I.
Think
people
may
choose
to
do
this,
but
I
think
that
should
be
the
exception
and
I
think
it
may
be
for
various
organizational
reasons.
Right,
I
think
the
if
the
bidding
I
think
that's
something
that
is
part
of
the
migration
story.
Right
is
this
something
where
people
really
want
these
things
separate
from
each
other?
A
I
think
that
that
is
fair,
but
I
think
that
is
if
I
spoke
to
fulfillment.
They
suggest
that
I
have
not
seen
the
data.
We
should
certainly
double
check
yeah,
because
but
I
think
the
assumption
is
that
you
know.
If
you
have
several
top
level
namespaces,
you
need
to
have
you.
You
will
get
billed
differently
at
different
levels
as
well,
but
you're
you
will
have
one
that
is
an
ultimate
and
one
that
is
in
premium.
For
example,
I'm.
A
C
And
that's
why
it's
key
the
the
messaging
on
this
does
get
very,
very
razor
thin,
but
very
it
matters
a
lot
in
the
sense
that
if
we
imply
that
we
are
going
to
combine
those
top
level
groups
and
an
organization
has
chosen
separate
billing
for
those
for
a
reason,
and
we
imply
that
we're
going
to
force
them
to
not
do
that
anymore.
That.
A
C
A
A
You
know,
then,
maybe
it's
easier
for
us
to
rename
ourselves
to
workspace
and
that'll,
be
that'll,
be
it
or
workspace,
slash
organization,
I,
don't
know,
I,
that's
something
to
to
be
figured
out,
but
my
impression
is
still
philosophically
we're
pretty
close
to
each
other.
Then
maybe
that
you
know
it's
it's
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
know
we're
building
pocs
at
which
you
can
maybe
also
see
how
that
would
actually
look.
You
know
because
that's
the
impact
that
is
I
think
difficult
to
visualize
without
actually
seeing
it
potentially.
C
Yeah
I
think
I
think
at
the
entity
organizational.
What
this
thing
is
going
to
be
I
think
we're
pretty
aligned
philosophically
I
think
where
our
philosophic
I
don't
know
how
to
say
that
word
tonight
tense,
but
are
our
philosophies
there
we
go
where
our
philosophies
maybe
are
slightly
different
or
I.
I
have
gotten
the
sense
that
the
feeling
is
I
need
to
share
more
I
need
to
be
able
to
interact
with
more
entities,
more
organizations,
more
things
and
so
building
walls
containerizing
things
feels
like
the
opposite
of
that.
A
I
think
that
is
fair
and
I
I
think
there
are
maybe
two
points
to
this.
I
only
have
some
very
preliminary
like
analysis
that
I
did
last
year.
I'll
send
this
to
you
that
looked
at
sort
of
usage
like
uses
and
how
many
different
top-level
name
spaces
they
touched
and
90
of
paid
users,
Touch,
One,
85,
or
something
like
that.
So
I
think
there
is
some
preliminary
data,
but
we've
never
really
gotten
to
the
meat
of
that
and
measuring.
A
The
question
is
really
a
lot
of
these,
at
least
in
in
my
mind,
if
you
are
a
company
and
you
come
to
gitlab.com
for
a
paid,
you
know,
for
you
know
like
moving
your
devops
work
here.
Are
you
participating
in
Social
functions
that
are
going
to
sort
of
mean
that
you're
going
to
contribute
to
open
source
projects
or
not?
How
important
is
this
I
think?
B
A
Them
yeah,
but
you
may
need
to
context,
switch
between
them
a
little
bit
more
than
before,
because
then
I
think
that's.
That
may
be
something
where
I
saw
some
design
proposals
where
it
became
more
obvious
to
users.
You
know
maybe
with
a
drop
down
or
something
where
they
are,
or
more
opaque
and
I.
Think
that
needs
to
take
into
account
what
is
actually
possible
in
terms
of
interactions
right.
If
it's
seamless
and
you
can
go
anywhere
and
it
doesn't
matter,
then
it
may
need-
may
not
need
to
highlight
it.
B
B
A
B
C
B
Eric
has
some
urgency
to
figure
out
his
naming
by
the
end
of
the
year.
Basically
so
I
don't
think
it
would
take
too
long
to
come
to
a
conclusion
there,
but
I
would
be
in
favor
of
leaving
it
as
workspace
for
now,
rather
than
changing
it
and
then
potentially
changing
it
back
and
leaving
it
like
this
for
now
and
then
changing
it.
If
we
have
a
conclusion
so
that
it
needs
to
be
just
to
one
change.
A
B
A
B
C
B
A
C
A
I
don't
want
to
or
think
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
something
that
I
have
to
resolve
as
well.
It's
like
I
don't
want
to
do
things
that
are
going
to
make
everyone's
life
a
lot
harder
yeah,
but
if
we
don't
talk
to
each
other,
it's
likely
that
that
will
happen
because
it
is,
you
know
it's
just
difficult
to
do
exactly
the
same
thing
without
coordination
and
we're
having
a
like,
we
are
proposing
a
pretty
fundamental
change.
So
at
the
moment
my
desire
is
to
figure
out.
A
You
know
if
what
we
are
doing
is
going
to
really
be
negatively,
impacting
others
like
you
or
fulfillment,
or
if
it
is
sort
of
net
neutral
or
makes
it
maybe
slightly
harder,
but
that's
actually
acceptable.
At
least
my
stance
at
the
moment
is
that
I
think
it's
mostly
compatible.
It
may
make
some
things
harder,
but
we're
not
completely
going
in
opposite
directions
and
have
a
direct
conflict.
That's
how
I
would
say
it.
C
A
A
C
A
No
I,
we
recorded
this.
My
suggestion
is,
maybe
you
know,
maybe
one
of
you
leave
a
comment
on
it
because
you
know
I
think
you
I've
sort
of
stated
my
mind
above
and
then
we
link
to
this
video
and
we
probably
still
have
a
couple
of
misunderstandings
in
there,
which
is
fine
right
and
then
but
we'll
move
it
we'll
move
it
forward.