Opened this issue to inform Dirk Roorda:
https://github.com/annotation/text-fabric/issues/54

Looks good to me too :-)

Oh I see..
I was just referencing the documentation and I saw that and it seemed like an error.
But I remember now we already had this discussion.
I would show the same page as without the /1, if possible...
In any case a 404, looks like an error..

@vlorentz I'm not convinced about having the url in the text of the badge.
I understand that a fork can use the "wrong" badge, by using the main repository's badge.
But the sha1 is already very long for a badge and this is really kind of a gimmick link :-)

Thanks for the images at the beginning of the diff, the badges are very cool !
I pinged @marla.dasilva to see the result and we might want to change the colors to more positive colors.
We are planning to meet about that on Friday, maybe we can even show it to @rdicosmo :-)

I don't feel comfortable to accept revisions, globally... but your diff looks solid.

review template with:

• @software for the software concept/project
• @softwareversion for a specific release
• @insoftware for a specific artifact in the software (e.g revision, directory, file)

A full deposit from HAL doesn't work.
It seems to be on HAL side, the deposits stay in partial status and aren't digested.
On HAL interface after moderation there is "Application Error".
I signalled this to Bruno and he said he's fixing it.

In D2216#52215, @vlorentz wrote:

In D2216#52210, @moranegg wrote:

follow the instructions of @vlorentz about L3 and we can continue the work on this tool :-)

This is already done, else you wouldn't be able to read the code :)

Thanks @scatenag for this !
follow the instructions of @vlorentz about L3 and we can continue the work on this tool :-)

Note that this doesn't solve the question of pulling release notes from e.g. GitHub release pages, which is something that would need to be done by some other component (T17 comes to mind).

review template with @software and @softwareversion entries

@anlambert thanks for the detailed explanation !

@vlorentz I think we can resolve this due to D1614?

At the moment the loader-tar is not adapted to receiving release objects.
@ardumont, Should we wait the refactoring of the loader-tar to successfully implement this feature for deposits?

• Fix typo

• Update specs: status image and other modifications

thanks !

Can you link to the list of metadata fields that resolves this ?

Here is the list of metadata we worked on for HAL specifications:
https://forge.softwareheritage.org/P183