Mumble: [DISCUSS] Server name consolidation: `murmur`, `murmurd`, `mumble-server`

[sudoforge]

There appears to be a healthy variety of names to choose from, when referring to the server component of this project:

• murmur
• murmurd
• mumble-server

This can cause confusion for new and experienced users alike. It is possible that consolidating the name of the server component would be helpful in this regard, however, it should be noted that name changes are typically a task best completed glacially -- and due to this, it is perhaps not worth the effort to consolidate the name at all.

I'm opening this issue so there exists a place to discuss this, with the ultimate goal of answering these questions:

• [x] How does the community typically use each of the names described above?
  
  
  
  • Answered: https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/4046#issuecomment-609581004
  
  
• [x] What should be the recommended naming scheme for packages which deliver either the client OR the server?
  
  
  
  • Answered: https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/4046#issuecomment-610257506
  
  
  • mumble-client and mumble-server respectively
  
  

[sudoforge]

Discussion from chat.freenode.net#mumble:

sudoforge | when referencing the server component, is the **proper** name `murmur`, `murmurd`, or `mumble-server`?
@davidebeatrici | `murmurd` is the name of the binary, `d` for "daemon".
@davidebeatrici | `mumble-server` is the name of the package for some distributions.
@davidebeatrici | `Murmur` is the official name.
@davidebeatrici | However, Kissaki expressed some concerns regarding that.
@davidebeatrici | More specifically, "mumble-server" seems to be used more than `murmur`

[Krzmbrzl]

I do like that we (in principle) have 2 concise terms for referring to the client or the server respectively. However as "Mumble" often includes the server and as there are multiple terminologies being used for it, one can't use the terms "mumble" and "murmur" and be sure of everyone knowing what part of the software one is referring to.

Thus I tend to agree with @Kissaki that it might be a good idea to start referring to them simply as client and server and call the framework as a whole "Mumble".

[davidebeatrici]

I renamed the mumble label to client and the murmur label to server.

[sudoforge]

I agree that calling the framework as a whole "Mumble" makes sense, and internally calling the client and server, "client" and "server", respectively.

What about packages which contain either the client OR the server? Should we guide package maintainers to call their packages mumble-client and mumble-server, respectively?

[Krzmbrzl]

Should we guide package maintainers to call their packages mumble-client and mumble-server, respectively?

Sounds good to me. That way it is obvious for everyone what the package contains.

[toby63]

Maybe also rename the binaries? (you could keep copies or links with the old names for a while)

Personal Thought: Even though I always liked the name "murmur", I agree that it is more convenient to use precise names.

[davidebeatrici]

Yes, indeed.

[Krzmbrzl]

Closing this as we agreed on what we wanted to agree upon and afaik the installer now also says "mumble-server" instead of "murmur"

[toby63]

Some questions regarding this:

1. Will you rename the binaries as well?
2. Where exactly will the renaming take place?
   
   
   
   • package names (see 3.) (responsibility of package maintainers/distros etc.
   
   
   • names in documentation, readme's etc.
   
   
   • names in UI
   
   
   • folder names
   
   
   • where else?
   
   
3. Could we mention this recommendation somewhere? (like a packaging guide or faq or tips)