Requesting flatc alias for flatbuffers.flatc


#1

So flatc is owned by aardappel the project lead of https://github.com/google/flatbuffers, previously it was owned by me but I requested it to be transferred earlier today and it was done Please transfer `flatc`

Now the upstream would want flatc to be an alias for an “app” that comes from the flatbuffers snap, see https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/pull/5293#issuecomment-484685782 (the name of the snap was changed to flatbuffers but the app name should continue to be flatc)

So could flatc be “unregistered” as a snap name and changed to be an alias for flatbuffers.flatc.

I will ask the owner of that name to comment here.


#2

So to make it clear:

1- flatc was transferred to upstream earlier today.
2- Upstream decided to deprecate the flatc snap and registered a new flatbuffers snap.

And the idea is to:
1- Revoke flatc
2- Add flatc as an auto-alias for flatbuffers.flatc command.

Let me know if this makes sense. One implication is that current users of flatc snap will be left hanging, and would need to be notified somehow that they need to remove their local flatc snap to avoid local conflicts and install flatbuffers instead.


#3

Yes, totally makes sense, that’s the expectation.

No problem, that’s a totally new snap, so no real users.


#4

Hello @reviewers, this one is pretty safe as both flatc and flatbuffers are owned by a single person.


#5

+1 for the auto-alias

Not enough votes to tally. @reviewers - can some of you vote?


#6

+1 from me, I discussed the revocation-or-not of the snap with upstream, with the result that the old flatc name is still registered to them (to prevent squatting and conflicts) but has no published snaps, which makes it pretty safe to add the flatc alias to flatbuffers.flatc command.

  • Daniel

#7

+1 from me for the auto-alias for flatc on flatbuffers snap (which I mis-type as flatbuggers every single time I type it).


#8

3 votes for, 0 against. This is now live.


#9

Note, I actually tallied and performed this on Apr 29 but I didn’t add the comment until now.