PrBoom+ UMAPINFO; naming conventions woes

[Redneckerz]

Introduction:

With the introduction of UMAPINFO, new forks and ports have emerged to take advantage of it. These need representation on the DoomWiki.

 

DSDA-Doom is the most obvious entry to be included, but Kraflab's tour de force needs a fitting entry. In the here and now, i am talking about PrBoom+ UM.

 

Thread:

The UMAPINFO branch by @Graf Zahl (along with DSDA-Doom) is the successor to PrBoom+ (and ofcourse PrBoom). However, a tale of confusion is found for beginners: They often stick to PrBoom+ or even PrBoom, unaware that updated successors exist.

 

For both ports, the aforementioned representation is in order. But for PrBoom+ UM, an additional issue of naming convention arises.

 

Simply TLDR: How should the UMAPINFO branch be named?

 

I have discussed this with PrBoom+ and Woof! contributor, @rfomin.

 

A quote from @fabian puts in another perspective:

Quote

Well, the fork is already acknowledged as the official continuation of PrBoom/PrBoom+ by both its original author (https://github.com/coelckers/prboom-plus/issues/41) and by Entryway who maintained PrBoom+ as the former official continuation (http://prboom-plus.sourceforge.net/).

 

So, it already has a name: It's PrBoom+. In order to distinguish the releases from the former ones we already append the "UM" string to them - because people somehow tend to append to names. So, people just applied this convention in reverse and append it to the port's name. Thus PrBoom+UM, though that's strictly not it name. To be honest, I'd rather like to go back to PrBoom or something similar catchy then keep appending more and more bytes to the original name. 

 

Conclusion:

I have decided upon a separate thread to discuss with the community what standardized name to hold onto from now on, and to be put forward into the Wiki

Additionally, i would suggest a new logo, as @kraflab's DSDA-Doom has one, and to distinguish it as PrBoom+'s successor.

 

Open to thoughts, i'd especially love to hear the points of view of those who actively work in these kinds of things (Nine Inch Heels, AlexMax, Gez. Graf Zahl).

[Gez]

PRUM.

 

I suppose I could accept PrBUM too.

[TheMightyHeracross]

Quote

Well, the fork is already acknowledged as the official continuation of PrBoom/PrBoom+ by both its original author (https://github.com/coelckers/prboom-plus/issues/41) and by Entryway who maintained PrBoom+ as the former official continuation (http://prboom-plus.sourceforge.net/).

 

So, it already has a name: It's PrBoom+.

 

If 2.6um is indeed the official continuation then it looks like you have your answer right here. The wiki already acknowledges this version as the current PrBoom+ release.

Edited July 1, 2021 by TheMightyHeracross

[Demion]

I like the name PrBoom+ and wouldn't want it to be changed.

[fabian]

10 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

I have decided upon a separate thread to discuss with the community what standardized name to hold onto from now on, and to be put forward into the Wiki

Additionally, i would suggest a new logo, as @kraflab's DSDA-Doom has one, and to distinguish it as PrBoom+'s successor.

 

This doesn't need a new name or a new icon. It is still PrBoom+. Both proff and entryway have acknowledged this as the "official" continuation of mainline PrBoom/PrBoom+, respectively. 

 

The UM suffix was added to the first released versions when UMAPINFO support was really the one and only new feature, in order to distinguish it from other fork's releases which might continue with the same scheme. I have kept the suffix for the 2.6 release and will probably keep it for 2.6.1, but from then on it will be dropped.

 

And now I have repeated pretty much the same that I already stated in the quote you posted.

[Redneckerz]

18 minutes ago, fabian said:

 

This doesn't need a new name or a new icon. It is still PrBoom+. Both proff and entryway have acknowledged this as the "official" continuation of mainline PrBoom/PrBoom+, respectively. 

 

The UM suffix was added to the first released versions when UMAPINFO support was really the one and only new feature, in order to distinguish it from other fork's releases which might continue with the same scheme. I have kept the suffix for the 2.6 release and will probably keep it for 2.6.1, but from then on it will be dropped.

 

And now I have repeated pretty much the same that I already stated in the quote you posted.

Then ill change the PrBoom+ article accordingly.

[fabian]

20 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Then ill change the PrBoom+ article accordingly.

Thank you!

[Gwarl]

15 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

However, a tale of confusion is found for beginners: They often stick to PrBoom+ or even PrBoom, unaware that updated successors exist.

If 2.6um really is an update not a fork, it needs to be updated on the debian repo

[fabian]

1 minute ago, Gwarl said:

If 2.6um really is an update not a fork, it needs to be updated on the debian repo

It is: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/prboom-plus

[Gwarl]

ah okay good job I'm already running it then. Thanks.