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.
for this you should open a fresh topic in
(as explained above) … instead of comenting on the process documentation
Thanks, will do. To be honest this whole process is confusing (relying on forum). Wouldn’t it be better to have a request button in the dev account directly without going through the forum?
Usually there are questions from the reviewers and discussions around granting any of the above. While a forum is indeed not the greatest way of communicating, it is a way to have the discussion transparently in public and centralized in one place …
an alternative would be a public mailing list or something similar.
having per-snap discussions (i.e. in a github issues style) would make the work of the reviewers much harder and it would make it much trickier to do forensics years later of “why was this permission granted to that snap, by that guy thats not in the reviewers team anymore” if i.e. a change to/extension of the permissions is requested.