Document different interpretations of 'members'
Follow-up issue to: Imported members are not shown on project_membe... (!90746 - closed)
Goal
We need to document clearly what our membership behaviour looks like. The goal is to generate an overview of which interpretation is used in what context, so that we could add that to the documentation
The system can be ambiguous when talking about members. There's currently many different interpretations of "members":
- Direct members: added to the group/project hierarchy through this group/project.
- Inherited members: added to the hierarchy as members of an ancestor.
- Direct shared members: added to the hierarchy through membership of a group/project that is shared into another group/project.
- Inherited shared members: added to the hierarchy through membership of an ancestor of a group/project that is shared into another group/project.
The shared memberships are only partially implemented through the product. "Inherited shared members" are not implemented/recognized at all.
Implementation in docs
-
Update the terms "user" and "member" where necessary. -
Add a subheading Types of members
. -
Add a table and diagram with the rights and visibility of group members. -
Add a table and diagram with the rights and visibility of project members. (!104270 (comment 1208812048))
Edited by Lorena Ciutacu