Process for aliases, auto-connections and tracks

Thanks @niemeyer

Based on that, here are the approved procedures:

Alias and Auto-Connection request and approval process


  • reviewers are
  • snappy architects are Mark, Gustavo, etc
  • votes are in favor (+1), against (-1), abstain (+0)
  • voting period is one week
  • voting period extension is 3 days


  • a requester creates a forum post with the ‘store’ category and makes case for change. To disambiguate snaps, the requester should either give the store URL for the snap or give the name and publisher of the snap. Voting period starts at time of request
  • a requester (reviewer or architect) may not vote on his/her own snap
  • reviewers and/or architects vote using the voting procedure (see below). Each vote should include a short rationale for the cast vote
  • if after voting period there are not enough votes based on voting procedure, a voting period extension should be requested by a reviewer/architect. The extension starts the day of the request for extension
  • at the end of the voting period, a reviewer/architects tallies the results from the voting period (and extension), summarizes in the forum post and performs any necessary actions

Voting procedure

  • the voting procedure is the same for granting and revoking auto-connections and auto-aliases
  • if reviewers and up to at most one architect voted: simple majority with at least 2 votes in favor at end of voting period/extension: perform requested action
  • if two or more votes in favor/against from architects: reviewers votes are not tallied. If have only in favor votes from architects at end of voting period/extension: perform requested action, otherwise architects discuss until no against votes and at least one vote in favor from architects. If clear direction from architects (eg, no abstain votes), an architect may request the vote be tallied early.
1 Like

@jdstrand Thanks for formatting it nicely. Would be nice to have that process as the first message of this topic, so people getting into it will see the actual approved process upfront.

I’ve done this just now.

One more request. Could the first message be updated to reflect the fact that this process also applies to track requests? So far I’ve been informally pointing people to this post and just saying “this also applies to tracks despite what the process specifies” but it’d be nice for that to be formalized.


1 Like

FYI, I did this yesterday.

1 Like

@jdstrand @niemeyer Is it possible that we can one or two people from CE into the list of reviewers to speed up reviews for certain commercial things?

1 Like

It is of course possible; I’ll leave the decision to @niemeyer if we want to do this.

My question is what in the existing process is causing trouble? You asked on this thread and I saw in another thread you wanted to speed up the one week waiting period. The one week waiting period is in place so reviewers have a chance to vote (ie, we want to support the case where 2 quick ‘yea’ votes are cast and then a ‘nay’ vote later). There is also a process for architects to waive the waiting period. Is this not sufficient for your needs?

1 Like

@morphis @jdstrand Everybody is welcome to review, but we need at least two reviews from people that are sitting here all the time and reviewing things all the time and that remain aware of current practices. Having someone sporadically reviewing and mainly when they want things in quickly feels like a recipe for bad reviews.


I’ve been meaning to investigate/document this for a while-- reviewers need not worry about granting an alias that is used by other snaps or an alias that is the name of a snap. snapd will prevent inconsistencies:

  • if a snap is installed with an alias, then installing a snap with the name of the alias (ie snap install <alias>) results in the snap being uninstallable until the alias is removed with snap unalias <alias>
  • if a snap is installed that has an automatic alias that matches the name of an already installed snap, then installing the snap with the alias results in the snap being uninstallable (this may be a bug, but it is safe)
  • if two snaps have an automatic alias with the same name, the second snap is not installable until the first’s alias is removed with snap unalias <alias>

I have polished a bit the topic and moved it into the documentation category.

In the process, I’ve also removed @jdstrand’s historical problem description from the post itself.

Here is the content for posterity:

So apparently myapps-reviewers is going away. In light of this, who are “reviewers” with regards to this topic?

1 Like

The current ‘myapps-reviewers’ from LP are:

IMO, the new forum group/team should consist of these people.


I would like to ask if the @reviewers group really exist? Directly clicking on the tag gives an “Access Denied while trying to load /groups/reviewers.json” error.

The group exists, yes. I’m able to see everyone in it by going to You might have to be an admin to see it.

1 Like

I would like to request pinning this topic in the store category, if that makes sense.

Apologizing for pinging, but I like to request again to move this topic to the store category and pin it there.

I would like to ask if mentioning each member individually using the mention feature of the forum would be considered unnecessary/troublesome/abusive. I’ve written some request templates and would like to make them as effective and non-offending as much.

Reviewers are in the @reviewers forum group

@reviewers gets automatically changed into a link by discourse, but it is broken when viewed on because it tries to link to

I guess it could be changed to explicitly link to to make it work on docs site as well.

1 Like