On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, at 16:05, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:05 pm, Abderrahim Kitouni
> <akito...@gnome.org> wrote:
> > Some apps use Devel as a suffix to the app-id, some separating it
> > with a dot, and some not.
>
> The dot is pretty important IMO, because without it the app ID just
> looks silly. Compare:
>
> org.gnome.EpiphanyDevel
>
> vs.
>
> org.gnome.Epiphany.Devel
Aesthetics aside, I would make the case for not using a dot. Your normal build
and your nightly build are two separate entities. That is, your nightly build
isn’t a sub-component of your normal build (in my mind).
For example (and please correct me if I’m wrong), a flatpak sandbox will let
you claim any DBus name that is a dot-name underneath your APP_ID. It feels
weird to me that a normal flatpak could intrude on the bus namespace of its
nightly build (not that it would, but still).
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
