Re: Recording archiver origins in git

[Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>]

Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:12:36PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> 
> Hope you're finding ways of staying cool and sane. It's hot here on the East
> coast, but a) we're used to it, and b) it's not yikes degrees.

Bugs are crazy invasive, again :<

> > > Imaginary code snippet:
> > > 
> > > $ git show refs/meta/origins:i
> > > [metadata]
> > > source = smtp
> > 
> > Is "source" necessary?  It seems like something that could be
> > in the "description" file or noted in the contents of
> > publicinbox.$NAME.infourl.
> 
> I wasn't sure what infourl was used for. :) Is it supposed to contain
> structured data, or is it more of a "click here for more info" kind of thing?

It's "click here for more info", so freeform.  It should
probably be added to the footer of every HTML page.

> > > listaddress = linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > listid = linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org
> > > archive-url = https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel
> > > archive-contact = postmaster@kernel.org
> > 
> > I think the keys should match what we use in the config file, at
> > least.  So s/listaddress/address/ and s/archive-url/url/
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > I'm not sure if "contact" is necessary if the aforementioned
> > "infourl" exists.
> 
> My thinking is that with mirrors of mirrors of mirrors, if someone submits a
> GDPR removal request, then there should be an easy way of figuring out where
> these requests should actually go. Maybe infourl can cover this, but it's less
> likely to be set up than an email address like postmaster@. So, I'm in favour
> of keeping that in the info record.

I'm a little worried about it having too many directions
(e.g. webmaster vs postmaster) and something freeform like
infourl can cover it.  Or we maybe something with user-defined
labels would work:

	contact = postmaster mail-admin@example.com
	contact = GPDR https://our-lawyers.example.com/form.cgi
	contact = webmaster web-admin@example.com

> > > Does that sound sane?
> > 
> > I think so.  Only the latest epoch would be taken into account,
> > I suppose.
> 
> I'm actually thinking the other way around -- only the 0.git (or whatever is
> the lowest number), simply because it's more likely to have that record. That
> is, unless you want to add functionality to automatically copy these from
> previous epochs on auto-rotation events.

It should be easy to change this info down-the-line in case of
project name/hosting changes, forks, etc.  So whatever's latest
should supercede the older.  It would also allow partial mirrors
to work with only the latest epoch(s) (I expect a partial
mirrors of recent epochs to be more useful than mirrors with
only old epochs).