Add separate “All-private-repository” and “All-internal-repository” variants of organization-wide roles #178527
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉 Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users. Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩
Where to look to see what's shipping 👀
What you can do in the meantime 💻
As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities. Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Select Topic Area
Product Feedback
Body
Summary
Right now, GitHub organization roles like “All-repository read/write/triage/maintain/admin” apply to every repository in the organization, regardless of visibility. This is often too broad. Many organizations want to grant write access to all internal repositories but not to private.
Adding visibility-based variants of these roles would make access control more practical and secure, especially for enterprise use cases where separation of environments matters.
Current limitation
The existing “All-repository write” role grants write access to every repository in the organization—private, internal, and public. There’s no way to scope this by visibility type.
Teams can be used to approximate this behavior by assigning permissions per repository, but that requires automation and constant maintenance when new repositories are created.
Proposed change
Introduce visibility-based variants of the current all-repository roles, such as:
These roles would give administrators the ability to grant broad permissions within a visibility class, without impacting others.
Why this matters
Organizations often have different governance or compliance requirements for private, internal, and public repositories. Being able to separate these permissions reduces the risk of accidental write or admin access to repositories that should remain protected.
This also removes the need for brittle automation and makes permission management easier to audit and reason about.
Example use case
A service account or automation user needs to push changes to all private repositories but must not have any access to internal or public repositories. Currently, the only available option is “All-repository write,” which includes every repo. A scoped role like “All-private-repository write” would solve this cleanly.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions