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.
FYI, I did this yesterday.
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?
@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?
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 https://forum.snapcraft.io/groups/reviewers. You might have to be an admin to see it.
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 https://docs.snapcraft.io/t/process-for-aliases-auto-connections-and-tracks/455 because it tries to link to docs.snapcraft.io/groups/reviewers.
I guess it could be changed to explicitly link to https://forum.snapcraft.io/groups/reviewers to make it work on docs site as well.
Dear @reviewers, I would like to request the 18 and 20 tracks for the nitrogen-gadget and nitrogen-kernel snaps. so that I can maintain both versions, especially since gadget 18 & 20 versions really aren’t compatible.
Thanks in advance.