On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/2/12 5:58 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:47:33AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> Dave Fisher wrote on Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:33:16 -0700: >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5334 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone else beat me to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually they didn't, as of right now there is no request in the queue >>>>>> >>>>>> (private@incubator will be emailed a notification once the request is >>>>>> made) >>>>> >>>>> The form told me that [email protected] already exists. >>>> >>>> Was this the final name of the list? A better one could have been >>>> extensions@ or better api@ (yes, I know it's late, but I've been busy). >>>> >>> >>> I wanted to be compressive of user/developers working with macros, >>> scripts and extensions. "Application Development" (AppDev) includes >>> all of them. >> >> Yes, it makes sense, but the abbreviation in itself is not meaningful, >> IMHO, and reminds of http://www.appdev.com/ and other commercial stuff, >> while api@ sounds more neutral; and OpenOffice.org API users/extension >> developers are used to it (in order to get an idea of the activity on >> this area, in OpenOffice.org days, you have to browse api@ mailing list, >> most of the traffic was there, not in extensions@). So, for the average >> OpenOffice.org extension/application developer, api@s already makes >> sense. Besides, an api@ list sound like the proper place to discuss API >> design and changes (like the ones that should be done in AOO 4.0). >> >> Just a question of taste, I could live with appdev :) > > me too, but I agree to Ariel and I would have preferred > [email protected] as well for the same reasons. >
It would have been nice to have known this preference much earlier. Certainly [email protected] is fine with me if that's what we all want now. But I don't know if it is too late. I have zero visibility into the process at this point. -Rob > Juergen >
