On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 10:46:53PM -0400, Michael Hall wrote: > On 03/25/2017 06:53 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > ... yes, more questions :-) > > > > First, how problematic is it to organize a cooperative transfer of > > ownership of a reserved name between one snap publisher and another? > > I'm thinking of a case where a package might start as a 3rd-party > > project (read: yours truly) and then be made official later. > > > > I know the recommended practice is to define a different name, like > > `appname-whatever`, but I'm wondering what the options and difficulties > > might be if that wasn't wanted. > > > > IIRC, it's a manual process still, so it's not really problematic but it > won't scale well if it becomes a very common occurrence. For now though, > as long as you have the original developer's blessing to use the package > name, you should be good to go ahead. We will hopefully have a more > scalable solution in place before it becomes a burden on us. >
This work is well underway and will make it painless for the existing publisher of a snap to transfer it over to another developer. We will announce the details here when it is ready. Meanwhile, if you are just testing things out we recommend using appname-username pattern, or if you intend to steward the snap and commit to regular quality releases then you can request ownership of the base appname via the name registration process. -bret -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft