Preparing for a stable branch of flatpak

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 11/30/2016 05:26 PM, Allan Day wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com
> <mailto:sbergman at redhat.com>> wrote:
>     On 11/30/2016 05:07 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
>         The current names are quite long, but they are obviously unique.
>         Using
>         something like ".app" is more likely to conflict with other apps
>         or be
>         seen as too generic. What do people think about the short forms
>         "*.fpa"
>         and "*.fpr" instead?
>
>     My spontaneous reaction is that .flatpakrepo and .flatpakref are
>     just fine while .fpa and .fpr are "please don't".
>
> Can you explain why?

The latter feel like trying to cram things into the ugliness of the 
legacy DOS 8.3 world.  In comparison, the former have a more modern feel 
to them.  (They may be on the long side, but not overly long IMO.)