Time Nick Message 00:00 Megaf the chunks that the server send to client are too big 00:00 Megaf the mapblocks 00:00 Megaf it should be much more, granular, fine 00:00 Megaf and dynamic 00:00 paramat heh 00:00 Megaf even with fog at 0.4 I can see the map appearing in a very non smooth way 00:01 Megaf building and trees sudenly pop into view instead of a smooth fade in from the fog 00:01 Megaf making the fog useless 00:01 paramat yeah fog is just a colour change 00:01 Megaf fog should also giver performance gains since theres less visable stuff 00:02 paramat nope, with fog closer there's the same rendering distance 00:04 paramat you might like 0.85. anyway it's my fault, i insisted RBA kept it at 0.9 :] 00:04 Megaf I quite like 0.4 00:05 Megaf in my server it looks great with all the bridges and highways 00:05 Megaf it blends quite ok 00:20 paramat Minetest 0.4 is now 4 years old 00:22 paramat i arrived 3 months later 00:28 Megaf paramat: I mean, 0.4 as value for fog in game.cpp 00:29 paramat i know :] 00:30 paramat i just saw Calinou's comment in the other channel 00:31 Megaf what channel? 00:34 paramat #minetest 00:37 paramat will merge #4339 in a few hours if no objections. mapgen bugfix 00:37 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4339 -- CavesNoiseIntersection: Place riverbed node under river water by paramat 03:43 paramat merging #4318 #4339 03:44 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4318 -- lua_api.txt: Remove tooltip checkbox[] element by everamzah 03:44 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4339 -- Mgvalleys / cavegen: Place riverbed nodes under river water by paramat 04:07 paramat done 06:18 OldCoder Recently, worlds seem to lock-up during announce to server list. Is this a known issue? 06:21 hmmmm paramat: who signed off on 4339? 08:06 tenplus1 hi folks... could a kindly dev check out pull game#965 tested and ready to be added 08:06 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/965 -- Ability to Disable bones, drop items or keep inventory. by tenplus1 17:06 paramat hmmmmm i announced 4339 twice 2 days ago, highlighted you and asked for reviews but no-one did. since it was a borderline trivial, simple and obvious mapgen bugfix to my own code i decided to announce merge and give 3 hours for objections 17:38 hmmmm that doesn't fit the definition of trivial though 17:38 hmmmm trivial is like adding a piece of documentation or changing around a comment 17:38 hmmmm i was completely gone doing other stuff the past 2 weeks, there has to be some other developer to do a review 17:39 hmmmm 2 days is not a long time by any means... many prs stay around for months even 17:41 paramat yeah i admit i took some initiative here, but it was reasonable 17:47 paramat engine devs are very absent currently, even sofar seems busy 17:49 hmmmm calling that change of code functionality 'reasonably trivial' creates a slippery slope for what could be called trivial down the road 17:49 hmmmm you're going to erode the contribution process if you continue doing this 17:49 hmmmm maybe to you it is trivial, but what if you made a mistake and there was a security vulnerability due to it? 17:50 hmmmm and then there's a bunch of people all running minetest who get a virus because of your code change not being peer reviewed 17:53 paramat it's simple mapgen code i understand completely, my own code, in an area i have previously been given authority over. if i had any doubt of it's safety i would not have merged it 17:55 hmmmm but the point of code review is not self-confidence 17:55 hmmmm you might've overlooked something that if you had known about, you would have a doubt then 17:56 hmmmm calling a code functionality change like that simple is a matter of opinion 17:56 paramat it was borderline trivial, and i admit probably not trivial, but considering the other circumstances this was ok, i even announced and waited 3 hours 17:56 hmmmm we drew the hard line of what 'trivial' is defined as with documentation changes or code changes that do not affect functionality or significantly impact structure 17:57 hmmmm if a code change is not trivial in that sense, then it needs to get approval 17:57 hmmmm some of my changes i think are very simple and i have all the confidence in the world in them, but i still don't go ahead and merge it on my own 17:57 hmmmm i wait for others to review it, even if it takes a week 17:57 paramat you are ultra-strict about this for others, but relaxed about it when you do it yourself 17:58 hmmmm how so 17:58 hmmmm what code changes have i defined as trivial that aren't trivial by that definition 17:58 paramat because you've taken the initiative in a reasonable circumstance yourself before 17:58 paramat which was fine by me 17:59 hmmmm do you mean this? https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commit/27aff22a9b68044d3ea51db731597834336effa3 18:00 hmmmm now this is an example of a commit that i would consider trivial even though it does change code 18:00 hmmmm i don't remember if it had approval or not before merging 18:01 paramat well maybe not that, i just know you've done it and est has complained about you taking initiative :] 18:01 hmmmm i know that more than a year ago i used to be a lot looser about what trivial is 18:01 hmmmm but not since we came up with actual definitions 18:01 paramat nevermind about slippery slope, just consider what i actually did, and the circumstances 18:01 hmmmm i think it was earlier this year when we spoke with celeron 18:01 paramat no you've done it more recently 18:02 hmmmm and est31 complained about it? 18:02 hmmmm you must be talking about the PR i merged of somebody else's that i reviewed 18:02 paramat still, your strictness is appreciated, our quality has gone up 18:02 hmmmm the argument there was not about whether it was trivial or not, but whether it required 2 code reviews 18:03 paramat yeah maybe that 18:03 hmmmm and est argued that any api change should automatically require at least 2 code reviews 18:03 hmmmm that sounds reasonable to me, so that's what we go by now 18:03 hmmmm but that had nothing to do with the question of whether a commit was trivial or not 18:03 hmmmm it was an outside contribution from somebody else, and i did a code review, it's just that somebody thought that one wasn't enough 18:04 paramat sure, i admit my PR wasn't trivial, but was close 18:04 hmmmm which is why i'm not reverting it 18:04 paramat and i know that code better than anyone 18:04 hmmmm i'm just telling you watch it 18:04 paramat i will 18:04 hmmmm "knowing the code better than anyone" doesn't mean you can't make a mistake 18:05 paramat agreed 18:05 hmmmm i "know" the schematics code well and i made a mistake where instances never get dropped causing a slow memory leak 18:05 hmmmm but then again, i could argue that's also the fault of the developer for not tracking object handles 18:07 paramat anyway, i'm happy you're paying attention and noticed a suspicious merge 18:07 hmmmm the thing is, i wasn't paying attention 18:07 hmmmm like i said i've been busy all week and i just so happened to look on irc and saw that 18:07 hmmmm it was by chance 18:08 hmmmm this could've easily slipped by, and what if it had contained a security vulnerability 18:08 paramat that code obviously could not 18:09 hmmmm well how do you know that 18:09 paramat look at the code 18:10 hmmmm but nobody would've looked at the code without a code review and i hadn't looked at the channel by chance 18:12 paramat the code obviously cannot be harmful 18:12 hmmmm you'd be surprised at how non-obvious exploitable code can be 18:13 hmmmm it doesn't always need to involve "char foobar[10]; strcpy(foobar, boo);" 18:14 hmmmm it's also possible that a modification in logic could make a condition that was otherwise unexploitable now exploitable 18:15 paramat yeah. anyway even recently your strictness does vary a lot, depending on how relaxed you are, so watch it ;] 18:20 * Krock wonders if paramat will add a self-destructing "One approval" label just for him 18:24 paramat heh 18:32 paramat i actually don't use the approve label for my own PRs anymore 18:37 Krock paramat, I was just a bit amused because sometimes it was approved, a day later not anymore 18:37 paramat yeah approval comes and goes frequently 18:48 paramat nore sfan5 sofar please can anyone review game#965 ? 18:48 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/965 -- Ability to Disable bones, drop items or keep inventory. by tenplus1 18:52 paramat 4 months old PR 18:58 Krock Oh.. looked at it so many times and can't find anything to correct in it