Let's kill "sideloading"

[Dustin Kirkland]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer
<gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> With assertions finally being put to great use, it's time to kill the term
> "sideloading". That term does a disservice to our conversations, because it
> is vague and also limits the thinking around what is possible.
>
> Whenever we use "sideloading", we mean one of two things:
>
> 1. The installation of a snap from the local filesystem
> 2. The installation of a snap that is not backed by assertions
>
> We can talk about these cases using this actual terminology. To talk about
> the second case tersely we can use "unasserted", which is apparently a real
> term [1]:
>
>     "1. resting on a statement or claim unsupported by evidence or proof;
> alleged:"
>
> That's exactly what we mean by that.
>
> With assertions, we can have the first case without the second, though. A
> snap in the local filesystem doesn't necessarily have to be unasserted.
>
> So:
>
> Case 1: sideload => local snap
> Case 2: sideload => unasserted snap
>
> How does that sound?

It's a reasonable suggestion, but you'll need to match the part of speech.

"sideload" here is a verb, whereas "local snap" and "unasserted snap"
are adjective + noun tuples.  (And "sideloading" is a gerund, or a
present participle verb form.)

I think you're suggesting, s/sideload/install local/ and
s/sideload/install unasserted/.

So, colloquially:
  "Hey Jim, yeah, to do that you'll need to just sideload your snap"
becomes
 "Hey Jim, yeah, to do that, you'll need to just install a local snap"
or
 "Hey Jim, yeah, to do that, you'll need to install an unasserted snap."

(While I find "unasserted" a little bumpy, but I'm sure it may feel a
little more comfortable with practice.)