Adam Ralph

Yeah, I can't claim to have thought it through very far. The syntax highlighting suggests that it isn't valid YAML :wink: How about this: ``` YAML upforgrabs: core: name: up-for-grabs...

Given that the schema would change from... ``` upforgrabs: name: link: ``` to ``` upforgrabs: project1: ... project2: ... ``` ... I guess you'd have to migrate all the current...

So long as you're happy to special case a child named `link`. I.e. no project can be called 'link'.

@shiftkey yep, that's a good trick. In fact, @andreasohlund came up with the same idea for the Particular repos - https://github.com/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+user%3AParticular+label%3A%22Tag%3A+Up+For+Grabs%22 - and we're planning to send a PR (which...

@shiftkey one problem that immediately jumps out is that not all projects are on GitHub...

@shiftkey fair enough, if you're covering 97% of projects then full steam ahead :ship: @daveaglick not a bad take on the problem, and fully backwards compatible...

@Jak-MS @EdPrice-MSFT I believe this would be a valuable addition to this document. As @kbaley said: > The webinar is technology agnostic and is a discussion on the concepts and...

@ptrelford does this match what you had in mind? If so, I can mark the issue as taken by you.

Marked as **taken** by @ptrelford and moved into **working**. Thanks very much @ptrelford!

@ptrelford there hasn't been any movement on this for almost a year so I guess you haven't had time to look at it. I'll move it back out of progress....