Hello Daniel, hopefully a slightly more interesting than usual empty request for you (and the other reviewers) today.
I’ve a few packages that have my name in them, and overtime I’ve “migrated” them to packages without my name in them. Some packages have been easier than others, but there’s one that still currently causes me issues,
Because Joplin has built in synchronisation capabilities (Joplin clients on other devices/platforms all communicating together, often with backwards incompatible changes), the older package can’t simply be dropped (e.g, set to private) and left on an older version without causing some mayhem, so I’ve had the package set to unlisted and been updating it alongside
joplin-desktop for a while now, hoping users migrate overtime as they re-install their distributions and similar. For the most part it’s working and the numbers on the older package are going down, but it’s also not happening as quickly as I’d like and I think part of that is that it’s still getting new installations.
Some users continue to use the older instructions (possibly helped by the fact some older blogs exist and don’t mention the newer instructions), and I’d like to prevent new installations where possible so I can eventually stop maintaining both; so I thought, why not create a new track with nothing on it and set that track to default. Existing users will be subscribed to “latest”, which would continue to work fine, but new installations would attempt to subscribe to “Null”, which would never have anything on it, erroring out and encouraging them to try something else (hopefully, the newer package!)
So, it’s a fairly non-conventional use-case for tracks, but I’m assuming that if granted, it would have the desired effect, existing users keep getting updates, new users get rejected. Could this request be evaluated on the basis that there will only be a “Null” and “Latest” track, and the “Null” track would never have anything on it for the reasons above.
Feel free to avoid calling it “Null”, maybe “Empty” instead; Null is a scary word and might cause problems thrown into databases without proper type checking somewhere…