Let's kill "sideloading"

[Bret A. Barker]

Consider also that we likely want to support remote unasserted installs for alternate stores [1], so they are fully orthogonal concepts.

So we have all four local/remote asserted/unasserted combos. And I agree that "sideloading" is no longer a useful term.

-bret

[1] With whatever warnings or override flags/configs we feel appropriate for that use-case.

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 07:15:25PM -0300, Gustavo Niemeyer 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?
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unasserted
> 
> 
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net