docs(REPOSITORIES.md): revising repositories "scope" and "status"

[leogr]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

Any specific area of the project related to this PR?

Uncomment one (or more) /area <> lines:

/area governance

/area proposals

/area utils

What this PR does / why we need it:

For context, see #271

This PR:

• divorces the concept of repositories scope and status, and revise our documentation to ensure these definitions and statuses are clearly described
• as a consequence of the above point, it introduces several further changes:
  • Previously, core and official were used as synonyms. Now core is a scope, and official has been removed in favor of stable as a status.
  • Available scopes are now: core, ecosystem, infra, special
    • N.B. ecosystem and infra are new
  • Newly introduced statuses: stable, incubating, sandbox, deprecated
    • N.B. stable replaced official, deprecated is the path for archiving a repo
• introduces clear descriptions and criteria for statuses
• as a consequence of the above points, it also revises the status/scope of some repos, in particular
  • all repos previously defined just as "incubating" are now assigned a proper scope (ecosystem or infra)
  • the following repositories get promoted to stable since the new criteria match:
    • falco-exporter
    • falcosidekick
    • test-infra
• introduces badges for scopes and statuses
• update the automation to work with the new concepts
• as a bonus point, revise and improve all repository descriptions

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Contribute to #271 but not completely address it.

Special notes for your reviewer:

This PR modifies the status or scope of some repositories to reflect the new criteria. As per our governance, this change is allowed just using lazy consensus since no core repositories have been touched. But, in case you disagree with the new categorization, just let me know.

[maxgio92]

Great @leogr and thank you!

/lgtm

[incertum]

@leogr 🤯 🤩 ❤️ this is truly amazing work!!! Loving it!

We could consider removing the gif from the README plus perhaps we could enhance the descriptions of the repositories to something just slightly longer / more expressive (elevator pitch like why should I care? what do I get out of this repo?) if it makes sense similar to the changes we just made to the main Falco README. On that note, we can iterate on what the perfect a bit longer description per repo should be and as a result update the Falco README and all other repos to have them all in sync -> could be combined with the PRs that add the new badges to each repo.

[leogr]

@leogr exploding_head star_struck heart this is truly amazing work!!! Loving it!

We could consider removing the gif from the README

This one? 😿
If we agree to remove it, I'd do that in a separate PR, anyway.

plus perhaps we could enhance the descriptions of the repositories to something just slightly longer / more expressive (elevator pitch like why should I care? what do I get out of this repo?)

Good idea. I'll try to fix it soon. Anyway, consider we can always improve those descriptions later.

if it makes sense similar to the changes we just made to the main Falco README. On that note, we can iterate on what the perfect a bit longer description per repo should be and as a result update the Falco README and all other repos to have them all in sync -> could be combined with the PRs that add the new badges to each repo.

Please note that GitHub will show those descriptions in the left column at the top. 👇 I don't believe we also have to report them in each repo readme.

[leogr]

Last update: I just revised repositories descriptions as suggested by @incertum
Unless there're errors, I'd leave further improvements for follow-up PRs.

@falcosecurity/evolution-maintainers
So, this PR is now ready for review

To get a preview 👇
https://github.com/falcosecurity/evolution/blob/aa57a20828a134ebe840b2b2087641237547cf25/README.md

After this PR gets merged, we can add badges to the README of all repos 🤩

cc @falcosecurity/core-maintainers

[incertum]

@leogr LGTM, thank you! Agreed we can tweak the descriptions over time.

Proposing to proceed.

[maxgio92]

Looks great to me @leogr!
Thank you

[maxgio92]

/approve

[poiana]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: leogr, maxgio92

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [leogr,maxgio92]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment