Preparing for a stable branch of flatpak

[Allan Day]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com>
wrote:
...

>     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.)
>
>
The issue isn't that they are "too long". It's that:

 a) they might feel unusual, since long extensions aren't common
 b) they expect users to know what Flatpak is
 c) they leak implementation details which users won't know how to
interpret (particularly the "ref" in "flatpakref")

.flatpakrepo and .flatpakref aren't an issue if you're a developer and know
what they mean. It's regular users who aren't familiar with these things
that might have problems.

Allan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/flatpak/attachments/20161130/42e5ba95/attachment.html>