Time Nick Message 03:19 paramat hmmmm looks like #4135 could be merged now :) 03:19 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4135 -- Biomegen by kwolekr 03:21 hmmmm Well, you guys can't find any problems and I can't see any... I tested it and things seem to be working fine 03:21 hmmmm still kind of scary though 03:21 hmmmm at least that's what i think, until i realize minetest is just a game... 03:21 hmmmm nothing's going to explode if i got something wrong :D 03:22 hmmmm guys, I'm gonna try the Merge pull request button now that it uses cherry pick 03:22 hmmmm actually nevermind, you don't get an option to merge without squashing 03:22 hmmmm I know it's messy but each of those commits do exactly one thing, and this way it makes it easier to track the root cause of a problem through bisection 03:24 Zeno` press the button! 03:24 Zeno` you know you want to... look at it... it's beautiful! Glowing like a jewel 03:24 hmmmm it's actually not just pressing a button anymore 03:24 sofar I find it easy enough to do merges in most cases 03:25 hmmmm you have to press a second 'Confirm' button 03:25 sofar but the squash merge works well for single-commit PRs 03:25 Zeno` I've never pressed that button on github 03:25 Zeno` "The button" I was referring to is a metaphorical button hehe 03:25 hmmmm yikes 03:25 hmmmm well, that's what a 4k line change looks like I guess 03:26 sofar Fast-forwarded master to c4e083f7e142d8e25e906bb19f9b1f03bb7b430d. 03:26 Zeno` I don't like it 03:26 Zeno` lol :D 03:27 hmmmm I'm conflicted 03:27 hmmmm on one hand, 18 commits is a lot 03:27 Zeno` it's ok 03:27 hmmmm but at the same time, it's common sense that squashing should be for commits like 03:27 hmmmm Add big feature here 03:27 hmmmm "fix" 03:27 hmmmm "Change variable names to XYZ" 03:27 hmmmm "fix again" 03:27 hmmmm "it works now" 03:27 hmmmm git rebase -i HEAD~5 that shit 03:28 Zeno` yeah, that should be squashed 03:28 Zeno` but that's... "stuffing around" commits 03:28 hmmmm yeah 03:28 sofar I love rebase/fixup 03:28 hmmmm also if I were to squash the whole thing into one commit we'd lose all the information about each thing done and how it's done 03:28 Zeno` the thing is.. can I checkout each of those commits and it will build? 03:29 hmmmm yes 03:29 sofar biomegen stuff looks fine, I can't see a difference with v7 03:29 Zeno` and work? 03:29 Zeno` ok well, it's fine then 03:29 hmmmm I made sure of that 03:29 hmmmm any one of those commits could have been cherry picked to master branch and work fine 03:29 sofar does this change v6 drastically internally as well? 03:29 hmmmm not quite 03:30 hmmmm but yeah 03:30 hmmmm my main motivation for keeping all the commits separate is to make it easy to debug, and also it'd be dishonest to stuff a zillion changes into a single huge commit to make it completely opaque 03:33 Zeno` well it makes bisect quite a bit harder if it's a 4000k line commit as well :) 03:34 Zeno` Does #4165 make sense? 03:34 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4165 -- teleporting players seems to use a queue 03:34 Zeno` I would have expected that to be the behaviour 03:35 hmmmm yeah same 03:35 hmmmm I think our current behavior is fine, mods should stop writing things poorly 03:36 sofar agreed 03:36 hmmmm anyway if there are no final objections I'd like to merge $3919 03:36 hmmmm #3919 03:36 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/3919 -- Add base64 encoding and decoding to the lua api. by red-001 03:36 sofar hmmmm: +1 for that one 03:37 hmmmm yeah it says two approvals but really it has like 4 03:37 hmmmm lol 03:37 sofar yeah 03:37 hmmmm merging... 03:38 sofar #3888 ? 03:38 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/3888 -- Particles: Remove particles on collision. by sofar 03:38 hmmmm says it's wip 03:39 sofar ah, I should learn to remove that label 03:39 sofar removed 03:39 hmmmm eww 03:39 hmmmm } catch (...) {} 03:40 hmmmm C++'s equivalent to On Error Resume Next 03:40 hmmmm I used to be an On Error Resume Next coder... when I was 14 03:40 Zeno` yeah it's a great feature (/sarcasm) 03:40 sofar I didn't add it! 03:40 sofar lol 03:40 hmmmm i know 03:41 hmmmm i should've been mad when it was added 03:41 paramat 4135 is best not squashed i feel 03:41 sofar our serialization code is chock full of it 03:41 hmmmm yeah.. :/ 03:41 hmmmm i'll take a look at 3888 03:42 hmmmm boy, ain't those particlespawner functions something? 03:42 Zeno` I know it's just personal preference, but: 03:42 Zeno` https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/3888/files#diff-6fa0632d20cfe987a56febe9c56fdd16R140 03:42 Zeno` I don't like chaining inits like that *shrug* 03:42 hmmmm +350 03:42 sofar Zeno`: no, it's indeed ... unpleasant 03:42 hmmmm sofar was just trying to maintain the existing "style" 03:43 hmmmm that code is gross and should not be replicated though 03:43 hmmmm i wish i never approved of the particlespawner but i was busy and people wanted it fast 03:43 sofar the actual code in that PR is 2 lines or so, the rest is all just damn glue 03:43 hmmmm yeah so how about that 03:43 hmmmm pkt << id << vertical 03:43 sofar hehehe 03:44 hmmmm adding a field to a protocol that requires reverse compatibility and no screwups? 03:44 hmmmm no need to be explicit 03:44 hmmmm everybody knows that code that's more compact runs faster 03:44 hmmmm for even faster code, eschew spaces between operators 03:44 hmmmm also be sure to omit bounds checking 03:45 hmmmm 99.9% of the time the input is correct... so it's really just a waste of CPU 03:45 Zeno` ah I see 03:46 Zeno` existing style... the eternal PITA 03:46 sofar the actual 2 lines of code are: 03:46 sofar https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/3888/files#diff-e645b6869505fb7c2f21eed5098a56e4R138 03:46 sofar that and line 140 03:46 sofar lol 03:48 hmmmm yeah could you change the chained initialization? 03:52 sofar um 03:52 sofar can I be honest? I know it looks ugly, but I've never had people slap me over the head that I write bad C++ code 03:53 sofar because I've not written much OO code from scratch... 03:54 Zeno` I wasn't slapping you on the head 03:54 * Zeno` slaps sofar on the head. Stop it 03:54 hmmmm what it's not bad code 03:54 hmmmm just a matter of preferences and clarity 03:54 sofar I need the head slapping, otherwise I likely won't learn 03:54 hmmmm if it doesn't get fixed here, trust me, it'll never get fixed 03:55 sofar but, no idea how to make it better myself 03:55 sofar I mean, I guess I'd try and do away with the 20+ param list somehow 03:55 hmmmm that's a little too much right now 03:56 hmmmm pretty sure it's in violation of our existing code guidelines that inherit from the linux kernel style 03:56 hmmmm i think there's a statement that says "no more than 7 arguments to a function" 03:58 Zeno` apart from that it all looks good to me 03:59 hmmmm maybe you should take Particles: pass texture as const std::string & and make that into a new PR that's "cleanup ParticleSpawner" or something, and we'll just merge the original commit 03:59 sofar yeah 04:00 sofar well, you can merge the bottom commit easily anyway, but sure 04:00 Zeno` hmmmm, I don't see that in the LKCS 04:04 Zeno` it does say to use only 5-10 local variables 04:04 hmmmm you're right 04:04 hmmmm i don't know where i saw that 04:05 hmmmm well, if it isn't in the LKCS perhaps it should be added to the wiki pages that adds to/modifies the LKCS 04:08 hmmmm sofar I did it :( 04:08 hmmmm did you want to merge it yourself? 04:13 paramat #4165 should be closed i think 04:13 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4165 -- teleporting players seems to use a queue 04:13 Zeno` I always ensure that there are less than 127 parameters in one function definition 04:14 hmmmm is that the C standard maximum amount? 04:14 Zeno` That way there is never a problem with http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#5.2.4.1p1 04:14 hmmmm sofar: could you comment on 4165 with your disagreement? 04:34 paramat what's next for mapgen, perhaps creating the biomemap within generateBiomes()? 04:36 paramat another issue is dungeongen using 2 point-polled 3D noises for mossycobble *=/ 04:39 paramat mossycobble deserves maybe one 3D perlinmap at the most 04:39 hmmmm mossycobble uses wetness and density 04:40 hmmmm both of those noises by default have low spread values 04:40 hmmmm if the spread value is under a certain point, bulk perlin noise generation loses its speed benefit 04:40 paramat ok 04:40 paramat but still overkill 04:41 hmmmm what? a Noise object is what's overkill 04:41 hmmmm do you realize how much memory overhead there is for one of those 04:41 paramat i mean, lets use 1 3D noise for moss, if that 04:42 Zeno` oh github has a revert button now 04:42 paramat yeah i see what you mean 04:42 Zeno` should I test it? heh 04:42 hmmmm if you use one noise only it'll lose its characteristic shape 04:43 paramat it won't be identical but that's not a problem 04:44 hmmmm for some dungeon types there isn't any moss 04:44 hmmmm maybe we can optimize a little by not converting cobble to moss if it's not wanted 04:44 hmmmm i wanted the sand temple's moss to be cracked sandstone bricks 04:45 paramat we could add a new node 04:45 hmmmm yeah 04:45 hmmmm but i don't have any texture making skills 04:45 paramat anyway i think the distribution quality for moss will be good enough with 1 3D noise, perhaps i'll make a PR 04:46 paramat no problem others can make new nodes 04:47 hmmmm i think instead of relying on perlin noise so much, it should be used more cleverly 04:47 hmmmm i'm getting bored of the patterns our noise typically makes 04:48 paramat perhaps in new dungeon params the alternative node can be optional, for new-looking dungeons 04:48 hmmmm all the dungeons are *supposed* to be old 04:49 hmmmm i think our random processes look so un-random because perlin noise follows a normal distribution 04:50 hmmmm i'm gonna eventually try retrofitting perlin noise to a different distribution such as cauchy instead 04:50 hmmmm maybe we can get more interesting lookin patterns that way 05:08 Zeno` hmmmm, I'm reviewing #3859 05:08 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/3859 -- Add minetest.check_password_entry callback by est31 05:09 Zeno` I'm assuming that your note from a day ago is the main outstanding issue? 05:09 hmmmm I dunno, it's just that I feel like this is a function that most users are going to say "WTF" when they see it 05:10 hmmmm there's also the part where it returns true, false, or nil 05:12 Zeno` yeah that triple return type is a bit weird but it's not tooo bad as it indicates what went wrong 05:12 hmmmm maybe 05:12 hmmmm but what if somebody writes if (minetest.check_password_entry() == false) then ... fail authentication here ... 05:13 Zeno` yeah 05:13 Zeno` it might also be some obscure security flaw as well 05:13 Zeno` it could probably just return false if formatting is incorrect as well 05:14 Zeno` don't say what the error is... it doesn't really matter what the error is, the less the "user" knows the better probably 05:14 hmmmm i'm still sorta confused on how this is supposed to be used 05:14 hmmmm user enters the password from IRC, the mod has the auth.txt file I guess...? 05:15 Zeno` yeah 05:15 Zeno` and this provides a way to check it (?) 05:16 hmmmm get_auth 05:17 hmmmm if the get_auth callback returns nil then the login is denied 05:18 Zeno` I think I'll have to look at irc_commands 05:18 hmmmm the use case for this is so specific to a certain mod 05:19 hmmmm i feel like this is almost a kludge of an interface 05:19 Zeno` it's a mod used a lot though 05:19 hmmmm right 05:20 Zeno` hm 05:21 Zeno` I must be missing something. Will wait for ShadowNinja I think 05:22 Zeno` I'm having trouble visualising things after this discussion (I *thought* I was envisioning it clear earlier heh) 05:22 Zeno` what does SN mean by "since Lua doesn't have access to SRP" 05:22 Zeno` if it doesn't then this is what the PR adds ... isn't it? 05:23 hmmmm like each of the SRP authentication functions 05:23 hmmmm not really 05:23 hmmmm it just adds a way to check a specific entry in auth.txt format against a username/pw 05:23 Zeno` well only partially but enough to verify 05:23 Zeno` yeah 05:23 Zeno` oh i see 05:23 hmmmm there is a function that exposes the original password hashing scheme to lua 05:23 hmmmm but nothing for SRP 05:23 hmmmm i think exposing SRP to lua would be a trainwreck tbh 05:25 Zeno` I'll think about it a bit 05:26 Zeno` I can't see many downsides to letting Lua verify a hash though (personally) 05:27 OldCoder This is needed for me to have IRC mods 05:27 OldCoder And, as ShadowNinja said... 05:27 OldCoder The alternatives degrade security 05:27 OldCoder To decline me the right to set security policies for my servers 05:27 OldCoder as I see fit 05:27 Zeno` Is there a limit on the number of password checks for a given username from a given IP? That's the only downside I can think of and it can be exploited without this change anyway 05:27 OldCoder will actually decrease security 05:28 OldCoder Upstream shouldn't really dictate to me what my policies should be. But unless you can counter ShadowNinja's points, those should be sufficient. 05:29 OldCoder There are no workable alternatives for busy server owners with numerous worlds 05:29 OldCoder hmmmm, how it works is simple. The patch goes in and I have IRC. 05:30 OldCoder Did you ever try to monitor a dozen worlds at once without IRC? 05:30 Zeno` So let me make sure I understand this. Currently to use a mod like irc_commands, for example, you have to use the old hash system? 05:30 OldCoder Me? 05:30 Zeno` anyone :) 05:30 OldCoder I tried and I couldn't get it to work 05:30 OldCoder None of the supposed alternatives worked 05:31 OldCoder But, again, my own point, as opposed to ShadowNinja's points, is also valid 05:31 Zeno` Well suppose the "old" hash system can be made to work. That's a horrible solution. This PR is better 05:31 OldCoder Who has the right to tell me, or any server owner, what security model we need to use? 05:31 Zeno` Nobody 05:31 Zeno` Just making I understand the situation correctly 05:32 Zeno` I think I do now and therefore support the PR 100% 05:32 OldCoder Which means it's pretty imbalanced, now, even though, as you said, it isn't a vote per se 05:32 hmmmm OldCoder: I prefer to understand how the patch works and what it does rather than focus on the results 05:33 Zeno` Even if SN's point #1 did work I don't see that as a good way to do things because it's so easily exploited 05:33 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1 -- GlowStone code by anonymousAwesome 05:33 OldCoder hmmmm, it is well understood, isn't it? It isn't a new patch or issue 05:33 Zeno` yeah that one, ShadowBot LOL 05:33 OldCoder The patch simply restores the feature... 05:33 hmmmm maybe it's well understood to the people who work on the IRC mods 05:33 OldCoder which was removed in this context. Isn't this so? 05:33 hmmmm this function was previously existing and had been removed? 05:34 OldCoder Moment, wording 05:34 OldCoder He had to change some symbol names to work with the revised API, but the old and new code looked pretty similar to me 05:34 OldCoder est31 would be the one to answer the question definitively 05:35 OldCoder As near as I can tell, the PR puts code back in that was taken out, or reasonably similar code, reworked to match a new API 05:35 OldCoder The result restores the functions that the IRC mods were calling before 05:35 OldCoder Nothing has changed as far as they are concerned 05:36 hmmmm right it's just that i don't know how this function that's being added is supposed to be used 05:36 hmmmm look at it from my point of view 05:36 OldCoder Which function is it? And, again, note that this is to restore removed functionality 05:36 OldCoder It is not a new feature 05:37 Zeno` I have to agree 05:38 OldCoder If this introduces a vulnerability, can it be exploited without intentional use by the server owner? 05:38 Zeno` If Lua cannot verify an SRP hash then... well, what's the point? 05:39 Zeno` Surely there *needs* to be a way for mods to verify that 05:39 * OldCoder is fine with the requirement to do a function call which says "Yes_This_Is_Dangerous()" 05:39 OldCoder But do we really need to get as bad as Mozilla has gotten in this regard? 05:39 hmmmm like I said, i think the point of this mod is to offer an alternative way of entering the username/password combo basically 05:39 OldCoder "Yes, I want to visit that website. Yes, I mean it. Yes, I want to confirm it." 05:39 Zeno` Lots of things are dangerous (I could have a keylogger installed for all I know hehe) 05:39 OldCoder The only possible way, hmmmm... there is no alternative offered 05:40 OldCoder That actually works and isn't less secure 05:40 OldCoder See ShadowNinja's points in the thread 05:40 OldCoder The change was put through without review of how it would affect server owners 05:40 OldCoder Who, we may all agree, are not chopped liver 05:42 Zeno` ShadowNinja's points are compelling 05:42 OldCoder The net effect, ultimately, will be to *lower* security for us 05:42 Zeno` And I cannot really think of a better way either 06:09 hmmmm aaahh I see how it works now 06:09 hmmmm okay nevermind 06:09 hmmmm I should've read point 2 better 06:10 hmmmm in any case, we have 5 approvals of the concept 06:10 hmmmm ShadowNinja, Megaf, OldCoder, sofar, and me 06:11 hmmmm nerzhul is the only one who doesn't like this, and I think it's a case that he doesn't exactly understand what this does 06:12 hmmmm I already code reviewed it and aside from some nitpicky points about documentation (the people who this API function is for will already know what it is and how to use it), i think it looks fine. 06:13 hmmmm Zeno`, would you do a quick code review of your own? (not approval of what it does necessarily) 07:01 Zeno` hmmmm, already have but will look again after dinner 07:01 hmmmm guys 07:01 Zeno` hmmmm, if it's only nit-picky stuff are you ok for me to merge if I don't find anything missed? 07:02 hmmmm if you're doing some kind of review on something PLEASE post your answer in a clear :+1: or :-1: format on the corresponding issue/pr 07:02 Zeno` hmmmm, I hadn't finished... got distracted with the conversation :) 07:02 hmmmm otherwise it's assumed the review isn't done 07:02 hmmmm or started 07:02 hmmmm oh ok 07:02 Zeno` I was ready to +1 but thought I'd discuss first (that's all) 07:02 hmmmm yes I am okay with that PR as-is right now 07:03 Zeno` Ok well merge. I'll add +1 if you like 07:03 Zeno` gotta find the link.. /me scrolls up 07:03 hmmmm i'll add a +1 too then 07:03 Zeno` thanks. I will do another quick review after dinner and then merge 07:04 hmmmm oh hold on 07:04 Zeno` yeah 07:04 Zeno` just saw 07:04 hmmmm so you think we should just fix this ourselves and merge? 07:04 Zeno` that needs fixing. I think it should just return false 07:04 Zeno` (for invalid format) 07:05 hmmmm I feel validated now that others share my concern :) 07:05 Zeno` :) 07:06 Zeno` est31 will be online soon(ish). I'll ask him to fix (even though it's simple) 07:07 hmmmm yea i'm going soon so 07:07 Zeno` np. Thanks for looking at it 07:07 Zeno` and discussing 07:11 OldCoder o/ 10:08 paramat nore sfan5 please could you review game#1001 ? 10:08 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1001 -- Fire: move fire node removal out of ABM. by sofar 10:13 sfan5 paramat: looks good 10:15 paramat thanks 10:56 Zeno` nore, paramat, et al, #4077 is ready I think 10:56 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4077 -- Colored chat and other strings by Ekdohibs 10:56 Zeno` it's been ready for awhile 10:57 Zeno` which unit test failed on the clang build? 10:58 Zeno` oh that thing again... unrelated 10:58 nore Zeno`: yeah, those failing unittests are annoying 10:58 Zeno` IMO that PR has been open for so long and tested and reviewed by so many people it should just be merged so it can get wider testing 10:59 Zeno` I think it might need some squashes though heh 11:01 Zeno` which is tricky because some really should be separate commits 11:01 Zeno` nore get onto that and let's merge! 11:01 nore Zeno`: I'll squash things a bit 11:03 paramat seems ok to merge this once squashed into fewer commits (although i haven't reviewed) 11:05 Zeno` It's been reviewed quite a bit and if it breaks something then now is the time to do it anyway (at the start of a new release cycle) 11:05 Zeno` I even ran it through valgrind etc etc after reviewing the code. It seems fine to me 11:06 paramat yeah and it's big, merge now before conflicts 11:06 Zeno` I agree 13:31 kahrl here's what I don't get about the colored chat PR 13:31 kahrl where *exactly* does the freetype requirement come in? 13:31 kahrl a standard IGUIFont can be drawn in any color perfectly fine 13:31 kahrl is it here? https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/4077/files#diff-583b33dfdabe4843bcc9a2b6750720eaR155 13:32 kahrl I don't understand what the cast to CGUITTFont* is for, since IGUIFont has the same draw function 13:32 kahrl (and why is there a "// FIXME"?) 13:33 kahrl and what happens if someone compiles with freetype but then loads a bitmap font (which should be possible)? does the code attempt to cast something to CGUITTFont* that doesn't actually point to a CGUITTFont? 13:40 kahrl (sorry if that sounded like a rant, it wasn't meant to be... but I just don't understand that part) 13:46 Zeno` nore, add a WIP please (based on our discussion) 13:46 nore yep 13:46 Zeno` and what kahrl says of course 13:47 nore kahrl: the problem is per-character coloration 13:47 nore and IGUIFont can't draw EnrichedString 13:49 kahrl oh, you made changes to CGUITTFont, I didn't see that 13:50 nore yep 13:50 kahrl couldn't that be done outside the font though? 13:52 kahrl I don't like making changes to bundled libraries, even though in this case it seems unlikely that the library would get any updates 13:52 nore ehm, I'm not sure 13:54 kahrl and there's the tight coupling between everything... ("#ifdef USE_FREETYPE" everywhere to switch between colored and non-colored chat, StaticText pretending to support a generic IGUIFont interface but actually only allowing CGUITTFont, and so on) 13:55 nore yeah, that's a problem :/ 14:01 Zeno` kahrl, is there a font-related PR of yours that should be merged? 14:01 Zeno` I vaguely recall seeing something but can't find it 14:01 kahrl well, not really 14:02 Zeno` hmm, ok. perhaps it's already in master 14:02 kahrl I mean, there's #1699 but it's very unimportant and shouldn't cause conflicts 14:02 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1699 -- Remove xCGUITTFont.cpp and xCGUITTFont.h wrapper files by kahrl 14:03 kahrl oh, someone marked it as rebase needed 14:03 kahrl I'll just close it then 14:03 Zeno` why wasn't it merged lol 14:04 Zeno` it's from 2 years ago... no wonder I couldn't find it 14:05 paramat will merge game#1110 game#1001 in a moment 14:05 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1110 -- Default: Bookshelf has 2 openings instead of 4 by paramat 14:05 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1001 -- Fire: move fire node removal out of ABM. by sofar 14:06 Zeno` why can't we merge sensible stuff more quickly :( 14:07 Fixer damn, i've just compiled minetest before this 14:07 Zeno` I don't think you need to recompile because paramat is making changes to _game :P 14:08 paramat correct 14:08 paramat merging .. 14:08 Fixer yes, need to update it manually 14:08 Zeno` Fixer, we must use different workflows heh 14:09 Fixer Zeno`: jenkins autocompilation for win and lin iirc 14:09 Zeno` sounds tricky 14:10 Fixer Zeno`: cdda does this, you just grab latest build and test...i mean play 14:11 Fixer paramat: is this ok that i can hear weak fire sound even 1000 nodes away? 14:11 Zeno` yeah, we use different workflows :P 14:12 Fixer Zeno`: also, it seems they just merge all the things and fix in process %) 14:14 Fixer Zeno`: 42 000 commits in 5 years 14:14 Fixer Zeno`: 1200 open issues, 4600 closed ones 14:14 Zeno` 42! 14:18 paramat merged 14:19 paramat Fixer seems not ok 14:20 paramat fire sounds are a mess anyway, rejoin game and flames go silent 14:23 Fixer right 14:28 paramat 'loop = true, -- only sounds connected to objects can be looped' but i don't see objects used 14:30 paramat also the sounds should hopefully be mono 14:31 paramat we need a new API for dealing with sounds like fire, running water 14:32 Zeno` fix the leaks while you're at it :) 14:33 paramat yeah they're mono 14:35 paramat it wouldn't be popular but i would prefer silent fire to buggy sounds and heavy code 14:46 Fixer paramat: they are mono, but for some reason they can be heared for very long distances 14:48 paramat maybe because they're not attached to objects as required 14:50 paramat seriously thinking we should delete all that hacky sound code 15:00 Fixer no way 15:01 Fixer paramat: i think you can change sound attenuation with distance 15:06 paramat max hear distance is already set to 16 nodes 15:07 paramat game#1112 15:07 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1112 -- Problems with sound code in fire mod 18:08 Hijiri someone could make an ear-cleaning mod with positional audio 18:39 lisac VanessaE: Hello, are you there? 18:39 OldCoder lisac, she may be asleep 18:40 lisac Alright, is there anyone else here who knows about inchraNET irc here? 18:40 lisac It seems to be down, or at least irc.inchra.net is. 19:15 sfan5 lisac: please talk about that in #minetest 19:15 sfan5 not here 19:16 lisac Alright, sure. I stopped talking about it anyways :D 20:55 OldCoder Is there a feature known as mob despawn in the core and if so what does it do? 20:55 OldCoder I.e. Do mobs evaporate for reasons other than lifetimer? 20:56 OldCoder lisac, Hi. PM to discuss that. 21:42 kahrl OldCoder: mobs are not a concept known to the core, thus there is no mob despawn in the core 21:43 kahrl (there are various ways in which the core might delete objects/entities, but none of those are specific to mobs) 21:46 OldCoder kahrl, thank you 21:48 sofar OldCoder: my prototype sheep never despawn, the engine unloads/reloads them as areas get emerged and unloaded, but other mob apis don't do it that way 21:55 OldCoder sofar, thank you