Null track request for `joplin-james-carroll`

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, joplin-james-carroll.

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…


Thanks for the detailed explanation. +1 on creating the empty track. Let’s just please not call it “null” :slight_smile: “empty” or “deprecated” would be better.

One thing though - remember that if someone explicitly says --channel=latest they will still get it from latest.

Let me know which name you decide on and I can set it up.

  • Daniel

Personally I think “empty” is a bit more self-descriptive than “deprecated”, so of the two, I’d go for “empty” please.

It’s not a problem that users can still technically access it by setting the track explicitly, if they’re smart enough to figure that out, they’re hopefully smart enough to question as to why they have to do that to begin with and end up on the newer package instead. I’ll also update the description to make it clear that there is a newer package for people who end up on the web listing or running snap info. ( I thought I already did this, but it’s possible the metadata mishaps a while ago undid that and I hadn’t noticed ).

Thanks for the help as usual :slight_smile:

The empty track is now created :+1:

  • Daniel
1 Like

Thanks again for the help as usual :).

I’ve also just realised I’d been referring to it as tracks rather than channels this entire time, I’ve edited the original post and the title slightly just in-case anyone gets confused reading this in the future.

I’ve also updated the description to point to the new package and set the default to the newly created channel, I haven’t got the time to test it yet but I assume it’ll do the job just fine.

Merci Beaucoup!

Edit: I’m an idiot, tracks was correct the first time! I’ve corrected the post again!