Track request for subiquity: artful


Can you please create a track called ‘artful’ for the subiquity snap (we’ll want one for 18.04 when that has a name too :-p)


Without getting into the whys of the request, given that artful is a codename and this is somewhat user visible, why not 17.10 instead which would be the release version you want to match?

In what sense is this user visible? subiquity is the new server installer, it is generally only installed during image creation, and us developers tend naturally to think of codenames not release names…

Right, if no one is ever going to manually install it (that is not a developer/system integrator), my comment has no weight at all

Per Process for reviewing aliases, auto-connections and track requests we need votes from reviewers/architects before creating these tracks.

What’s your intended use of tracks for this? will you keep a development version on the “latest” track and “track off” to e.g. artful, etc. once the snap is “frozen” for that specific Ubuntu release? Are you planning to do such an operation before said Ubuntu release is actually released?

That’d be an argument for naming it “artful” instead of “17.10” (what if artful delays to 17.11 and the track name becomes misleading? heh).

Personally I would keep e.g. development stuff on latest/(beta,edge) and frozen/close-to-freeze stuff on latest/(stable,candidate) and only split into a track once the corresponding Ubuntu version is released (say, making what’s in latest/stable go to 17.10/stable) but it’s just a thought. If “by codename” semantics match your use case, I’m +1 as we have precedent of naming tracks after codenames, a clear example being openstack.


The usual waiting period has expired and not enough votes were cast. Could other reviewers/architects please review this and vote so we can decide how to act?


Sorry for the lack of attention on this request. Is there a strong reason not to use 17.10, 18.04, etc.?

The lack of attention is on both sides :slight_smile: I’m not sure we’re going to need this, maybe let’s consider the request closed for now and I’ll make a new thread if the situation changes

mwhudson explained :

Other than that, I could think that if e.g. we create a 17.10 track and artful gets delayed and becomes 17.11, the track name will be misleading.

On the other hand - if we used release names, we could create 18.04 now instead of having to wait for the codename to be revealed :slight_smile: So there’re arguments either way.

Noted, I’ll remove this from my list but feel free to re-request these tracks if needed.