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 ooo-app...@incubator.apache.org 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 a...@incubator.openoffice.apache.org as well for the same reasons. Juergen
