Add support for consuming "repos" to import as "projects" in Identihub

[bnvk]

As per in person discussions with @elioqoshi last year, I am opening this issue as an idea / feature request for the Identihub team to consider.

Desired Result

As an open source designer and developer, I am in the habit of collecting work I do on personal and client projects in a git repo:

• BNVK - Designs

I also make independent repos per specific projects like:

• TransparencyToolkit, CyborgUnplug, and ProTipHQ

Other projects and people like @elioqoshi can be seen doing this "hot repo trend" with OONI as well.

Ideally, a designer / developer could simply paste a URL of a Github repo into an Identihub interface and it would automatically fill out the specific assets as displayed in Identihub interfaces.

Actual Results

Currently, a designer has to manually crop and save images as files that are then manually uploaded to Identihub one by one.

Benefits

• Identihub currently offers no "versioning" of image files, while git repos do
• Could automatically update the Identihub account if assets change
• Offers a sort of "standardized template" for designers that is familiar to developers
• Lays a groundwork for automation of all sorts of possibilities like logo & icon sharing

Specification

For this to work at best, it would need some rough specification for designers / developers to follow when putting assets in the repos. One such specification could be:

design_repo/
  - fonts/
  - icons/
  - interfaces/
  - logos/
  - photos/

Additionally, there could be a identihub.json file that has metadata (project, description, URLs, etc...).

I would be happy to help work on (and create in all my repos) a specification file like this if there is interest from the Identihub team on this avenue.

[elioqoshi]

@sidis405 this is the huge Git integration I told you about. It's a pretty major gamechanger and part of the bigger vision of Identihub. We hope to get this done by the end of the year for a big 2.0 release. Maybe faster if we get funding :)

@bnvk We didn't forget about this, it's just such a big feature that we haven't wrapped our mind around it yet

[sidis405]

@elioqoshi Sound good. Anyhow knowing we area pushing in this direction call allow for some measures to be taken meanwhile in order to make life easier when this will need to be implemented

[kominoshja]

We would probably need to start designing how this would work after the refactoring is done.

[elioqoshi]

The refactoring should take this into consideration though. Because if the architecture is fundamentally different, it will be a PITA

[kominoshja]

Right. I would suggest to have a videocall about this. @sidis405 @elioqoshi what do you guys think?

[elioqoshi]

@sidis405 is the chef for that, I'm flexible :)

[elioqoshi]

I'm still unsure what to do with Logos and Icons. Should we have 2 technically similar sections which differ just by how they are named? I was thinking that Icons should be half of the size of the other cards (namely in 8 columns)

[elioqoshi]

@bnvk @jancborchardt what do you think?

[jancborchardt]

Should we have 2 technically similar sections which differ just by how they are named? I was thinking that Icons should be half of the size of the other cards (namely in 8 columns)

That sounds pretty good actually, yes! :) And they differ in default sort position also:

1. Logos
2. Colors
3. Typography
4. Icons
   etc images etc