@alexmurray - when we discussed expanding the criteria for removable-media, we did make a distinction for ‘media files’ since, in part, common use cases are such that media files are expected to live on external media (we intentionally did not cover other file types). That doesn’t mean that we can’t expand the list, but ‘seems unnecessarily arbitrary’ doesn’t meet the review criteria and IMO that rationale does not outweigh the user’s voice (from our agreed to review processes: “by definition data that is not always present (as is the case with removable-media) is optional access for typical snaps. All snaps with this interface connected have unrestricted access to all data from any plugged media. Considering that removable-media may contain sensitive documents, sensitive pictures/media, encryption keys, etc and that snapd has no insight on the nature of the data, the user’s voice with regard to connection is preserved”).
IME, source code files are not something that in the general case are expected to live on external media, and as such, I’m opposed to adjusting our processes to include them. @pedronis, as architect, can you weigh in on whether or not we should add ‘source code files’ to be listed alongside ‘media files’?
For the specific case of arduino and s4a, perhaps we can make an exception, but if we do, IMO, the justification should be that typical uses cases for these snaps is that the source code will live on removable-media for an important class of users for these snaps (ie, students in the classroom). In talking through this, I’m now voting +1 to auto-connect for arduino and s4a specifically.
Since these snaps have been characterized as “an introduction into computer science and electronics”, I put forth the idea that perhaps we can generalize a use case for our processes to include “educational software” (perhaps with “used in teaching environments”) with the justification that a common use case for the software is the classroom where students are expected to save their files on removable media. @pedronis - can you comment on this proposed general case?