>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Michał Górny wrote:

>> I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but seems that you have
>> missed it. IMHO matching projects via their e-mail address is not a
>> good idea, because some projects have an address <project>-bugs@g.o
>> or dev-<project>@g.o which makes guessing the project's name (and
>> finding the project page) more difficult. Therefore, projects
>> should be matched by their proper name.

> And why would you need to guess that? Wiki project names are already
> disjoint from herds.xml <name/>s, so I don't see a problem with
> that.

We would need a "shortname" or "id" field in the project page
template, e.g. "Quality Assurance" -> "qa" (but I guess most would be
trivial, like "Emacs" -> "emacs"). I've already discussed this with
a3li some time ago, and there should be no technical problems.

>> > 2a. If someone really cares about this, we add an extra attribute or
>> > element which indicates the 'kind' of <maintainer/>. Otherwise, we just
>> > match herds.xml by e-mail address.
>> 

>> Why don't we follow the KISS principle and replace <herd> by <project>
>> in metadata.xml? That is, create a project for every herd.

> Because this:

> 1. breaks backwards compatibility,

It is already broken. For example, <maintainingproject> in herds.xml
does no longer work.

> 2. doesn't change anything but the name which is the most meaningless,
> waste-of-time change you could have proposed. if you do this, please
> count me out.

Huh? You really think that getting rid of herds and having all
information about project membership in one central place (namely,
the project page in the wiki) doesn't change anything?

Ulrich