@douardda I saw you had more questions on IRC, can you put them here and I'll capture in comments the answers.
Also I'll open tasks that we identified during our discussion.

@anlambert Thank you very much for this quick fix.
Do you know when will it be deployed?

Thanks @anlambert

Here is a first draft for the FAIRsFAIR event:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MnGaAyXSUziRQv7MqM8H2ix0McGa5Jw6ox6ZSviqf3E/edit?usp=sharing

Is this chapter saved anywhere? or is it so deprecated it shouldn't be saved?

Looks good.
missing the SWH acronym that is used in the page, I have added an inline comment for that.

Very nice introduction.
I made a few comments for accuracy.

This sprint has become recurrent e-meetings.
So I'm resolving this task ;-)

• FAIRsFAIR in a nutshell presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x6L29gZkJviHxgGSGnJnOXz2Sbt-XKXETFCPdDUs2Rk/edit?usp=sharing

We decided to put this aside for the moment.

@vlorentz can you take this task ?
It is not a high priority, but you have a good eye with xml and metadata.

More details for this task is here T2537

@vlorentz some comments on: https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-deposit/specs/spec-meta-deposit.html

What you are saying is that the SWHID is no guarantee, so we shouldn't create guarantee for a metadata insert.

Thanks @ardumont for this diff.

@ardumont thanks for this task! now it is more clear what the goal was with D4232.

Now that I have taken the time to see what we did and how this diff is changing things, I can see it has the potential of breaking the deposit.
The question is, how this diff serves the cli (feels that its goal is for the cli) ?

I agree with @ardumont that it's not a breaking change, it is something I asked for.
I agree with @vlorentz that having more options makes it more complicated to explain in the docs.

An interesting diagram that can fit the mirror documentation: https://www.programmevitam.fr/pages/VaS/

Accepting cause the comment is only to improve the docstring

This is a very nice idea to try and mock less things with tests.

I elevated the priority of this task because I have done a demo yesterday and it would be better to have the chosen icon in a top menu

Pointing to an archived copy of the source code repository isn't the same as the archived copy of the repository.
SWH archive url -> well formatted for acceptance

This task will take us one step towards a searchable archive :-)

Thank you @vlorentz for this important script that will take us one step towards a searchable archive :-)

Oh je-suis-GPL isn't a real test, di we really loose the xml for that?

I think that all are also tests, but I need the external_id column to be sure

All deposits here are tests you can even delete them completely from the archive

I need a more clear distinction when data and metadata are used..
data and atom are not compatible things... atom is always metadata.
data should always refer to the software source code content.

I'm uncertain about which scenario is tested.

I agree on linking Gitorious to the wiki page, but we should find a consistency that can generate automatically the coverage page.

Thanks for checking !

I'm not sure about my comment to change tool to fetcher.

@anlambert What do you think?

That's a good start !
I have some comments in-lined.
Maybe a clear plan for test and coverage, can be useful and help you continue the development.

A reference to AtomPub protocol which is used with SWORD:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/x-atompp1-pdf.pdf

Prod
This was due to corrupted file. The error was difficult to understand and wasn't logged on the moderation view (on HAL side).
This task is now closed.