updater
updater copied to clipboard
Unvanquished
rename updater2 to updater
The updater2 name makes no sense in two ways:
- there is no need to hard code version in binary name,
- it's our third updater code base anyway (bitrock, qt, qml).
The repository was already renamed anyway.
We may also want to store the updater as ~/.local/share/unvanquished/base/updater or something like that (see #50).
Docker seems to be broken (I mean docker, not the docker file) on my end so I didn't tested it.
Renaming at some point seems like a good idea, but we should take the opportunity to pick something more descriptive than updater. Perhaps unvanquished-updater or unvanquished.
The idea of updater name is for when it is stored in user directory as part of the installation.
For the distributed file, I would recommend calling it “Unvanquished Updater” (or just “Unvanquished”, but this would raise the bar very high about how much polished the experience must be).
Currently, the mac updater is distributed as Unvanquished Updater.app if I'm right. A name like Unvanquished Updater (or Unvanquished Updater.exe far better than just updater for something that would be stored on a folder or on the desktop. But updater as the default target looks very OK to me.
For example at 0.51.1 time I uploaded on IndieDB one single zip containing Unvanquished Updater.app, Unvanquished Updater.exe and Unvanquished Updater.
OK, naming it updater in the install directory makes sense to me. I just updated #76 to use this name, as the name in the install directory is independent of anything else.
OK, naming it
updaterin the install directory makes sense to me.
I have changed my mind about this. The executable basename by itself is what you often see in stuff like ps or Windows' Task Manager. So having a meaningful name can be considered part of the user interface. I think it should be UnvanquishedUpdater or unvanquished-updater everywhere
Related to:
- https://github.com/Unvanquished/updater/issues/117
This also relates with another talk I had in the past, suggesting the updater would just be named “Unvanquished.exe”, considering the engine is just a file like the nexe or the dpk. [Edit: LOL, this is my comment right above]
“UnvanquishedLauncher.exe” would works too.
I wouldn't call the updater unvanquished.exe because that's not the process open 99% of the time that you're playing. The honor of being renamed to unvanquished is better reserved for daemon (although it would be sad that we stop trolling Linux users into pkilling their system daemons).
Another good reason that the updater name should include "Unvanquished"-- if you use the URL protocol handler in Chrome or Firefox, it asks if you want to open the link with "updater.exe".
This change has nothing to do with the actual release name right? I think our release name should remain UnvanquishedUpdater.
if you use the URL protocol handler in Chrome or Firefox, it asks if you want to open the link with "updater.exe".
Another good reason why “UnvanquishedLauncher“ is better than “UnvanquishedUpdater”.
“Unvanquished“ is also better than “UnvanquishedUpdater” on that topic.