Talk:Variant

What is the bar for "actively developed"? I think NH4 has been slumbering for a few years now. --Testbutt (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. A less subjective option would be to have a sortable table of all variants with links, latest release, etc. Also, where patches are concerned, what's the bar for "historically significant"? --Aximili (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's still useful to classify variants into a small set of easily human-readable categories though, with objective criteria for assigning a category. Here's a proposal:

• Actively developed: Has had a release or added features/enhancements (not just bug fixes) in the past year.
• Actively maintained: Isn't classified as actively developed, but there is a known maintainer (doesn't have to be the original author; could be a server admin) who fixes bugs when they appear.
• Unmaintained but still played: Is neither actively developed nor maintained, but has some solid evidence of getting played; e.g. being available on a public server with an xlogfile showing recent games. (I would classify DynaHack as this; if it crashes on hardfought the game can be recovered, but the only person who might fix the bug is FIQ, who isn't the original author and has no obligation to fix anything).
• Historical: Fits none of the above categories, and there's no real indication that a significant amount of play happens.

--Phol ende wodan (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

^ seconded K2 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Four categories feels like one too many. The differences between them might feel academic at best, or even confusing, for players who aren't actively chatting on IRC/discord or otherwise keeping tabs on the scene. I'd break it down into "awake", "asleep", and "torpor", but, y'know, with more wiki-sounding category names like Phol is so good at. Or "active" "maintained" and "it is what it is" --Testbutt (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the list of actively developed variants is probably too big. NH4 had 3 commits in 2020. "Currently in maintenance mode" is probably a more realistic description. Likewise with at least GruntHack, NetHack Fourk, and FIQhack. --Bhaak (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I think some of the variants under "not actively developed but still played" are questionable. Are there actually a statistically significant number of NetHack:TNG, brass, AceHack, NitroHack, SLASHTHEM, or UnNetHackPlus players out there? (If yes to any of these, please let me know.) --Phol ende wodan (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SlashThem is still on ascension.run and the xlogfile even shows activity: https://ascension.run/xlogfiles/slashthem --Bhaak (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added back Amy's name as the SLEX maintainer - she was still listed as the DNHslex maintainer, and it feels unethical to "disassociate" her name from SLEX when it is her work. If the wiki doesn't want to link to the SLEX github due to issues with the content (references to sexual content involving minors) then that's fine but there shouldn't be any issue linking to her wiki userpage or just listing the version number.

Note: personally I think I'm in favor of not linking the github directly - the repo even has a content warning on github, which should say something - but that's different from removing Amy's name from it directly. Also please note that I do NOT agree with what SLEX contains, I just think there's no reason to be petty here. --EasterlyIrk (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I was mulling over adding that back myself while occupied with something else so yeah, that's fine imo. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks EasterlyIrk. --K2 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Should we have Slash'EM Extended on this page? I can see the argument for this being one of the few places to mention it, but if so, we should probably put a (much) shortened version of what's described in more detail on the its main page.
2. Is SLASH'EM actually maintained? I can't find any sign of that on the website or the sourceforge page. In the 3.4.3 era, NAO patched a few bugs in the official release of NetHack, like the astral call bug. If the changes are just on Hardfought, it may be more an instance of that - and I don't know that it really makes SLASH'EM "maintained". To be clear, I think the Hardfought changes are worth mentioning, I'm just wondering if we should change the classification.

For both of these, I can see arguments for and against, so I wanted to get other people's opinions before making any changes. Ion frigate (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)