Ideally you'd be able to send a unique code to people on the old lists, similar to the confirmation code sent to subscribers here, that took them to a form for subscribing to Apache lists by entering a new email address or confirming the old one.
I think someone said importing the subscriber list from the old lists wasn't an option anyway, and some people, for whatever reason, might not want to be on the new lists. Don On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > With regard to the migration of issues, are we going to manage to preserve > the identity of those who posted and commented on issues? > > I know there is some connection among issue creators, patch creators, and the > source-code histories that are somehow tied into particular identification > schemes, along with those for previous wiki contributors, folks having > @openoffice.org addresses, etc. > > I've been wondering how we might crack that nut and have a way to preserve > the identifications that exist while foreclosing their continuing usage as we > move to ASF-hosted infrastructure and in-project sites. > > - Dennis > > MUSINGS/THOUGHT-STARTERS, ETC. > > I am an user on a system that did some merges and expansions. They had to > cope with conflicts among IDs. They did it by adding suffixes to colliding > IDs from all identifier domains but one. If there was no collision, there > was no modification necessary. > > At Apache, one place where collision becomes tricky is when folks had short > names that might now (or in future) collide with names in the Apache user > name/ID domain. That might not be so serious as it first appears if we think > in terms of e-mail uniqueness (so n...@apache.org and n...@openoffice.org are > distinct, for example), rather than simple user name/ID values. But it is > desirable to differentiate short names when they are the link to the > distinguishing identity information, and to avoid issuance of duplicates in > any place where colliding legacy use of short names occurs. > > Also, with regard to name@oo.o, I think it would be good to preserve the > forwarding service but not allow new sign-ups. I don't know if we should > allow folks to update the forwarded-to e-mail address indefinitely or even > for a short time. My inclination is to allow it, possibly with an option to > declare that they are abandoning the address.
