Getting rid of terminology

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

Well, kind of..  I think we should kill it still, but your study case is a
good one.

There's an important distinction between "firefox" and "firefox.mozilla". I
wouldn't call the first one a qualified name (it's the opposite.. it's the
unqualified default).

Agree with Mark, though (and with you, as that was likely your underlying
point). It would be ugly to have 90% of the snaps coming with .canonical or
.ubuntu, so it's more polished to show nothing there.

This sounds more like a DisplayName, and unlike our current usage of
QualifiedName, it's very rarely used.

For example, today we have QualifiedName being called to define what the
path name under /snaps is, right?  That's unnecessary/unwanted as we
shouldn't have two snaps with the same name installed, and when multiple
developers publish under a snap name they share the data for that snap. So
it would be /snaps/firefox, no matter if it's mozilla, canonical, or
chipaca that is publishing that snap.





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, John Lenton <john.lenton at canonical.com>
wrote:

> On 11 March 2016 at 14:41, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > We'll show the developer if it's not the publisher, otherwise nothing.
>
> it sounds to me like QualifiedName isn't going away, after all.
>



-- 
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20160311/3d40ff30/attachment.html>