On 2022-09-16 at 16:59:23, Florine W. Dekker wrote: > I understand what you mean, and agree that mailmap is just a workaround for > this issue, having been designed to unify a user's multiple identifiers, > rather than helping move on from a now-invalid identifier. Being completely > new to this mailing list, however, I feel that solving the issues you raise > might be a might much for me to take on. I agree this is a bigger, separate issue that we should address, but it shouldn't prevent us from doing what improvements we can to the mailmap. > Instead, for now, I'm interested to see what we can do with mailmap as a > workaround. I like the idea of using URL encoding, and would like to hear > others' opinions on doing so. I think it provides a social signal on its > obfuscated state, it prevents people from accidentally finding out, and is > easy and efficient to execute. I think this would be a fine solution. If folks think the hashed mailmap would be better, I can resend that, or if we like the URL-encoded option, that shouldn't be too difficult to implement. I do appreciate you taking the time to bring this up since I think this is an important issue to address and it's come up a couple of times. I hope that this time we can come up with some sort of improvement with the mailmap we're willing to take. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
