Reserved project names and cooperative transfer of ownership
Bret A. Barker
bret.barker at canonical.com
Mon Mar 27 12:51:42 UTC 2017
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.
More information about the Snapcraft