Time Nick Message 03:02 sofar # define fips_cipher_abort(alg) while(0) 03:02 sofar huh 03:02 sofar util/sha256.c:36:0: warning: "fips_cipher_abort" redefined 03:02 nore wtf 03:02 sofar that's new 03:02 sofar util/sha2.h:85:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition 03:02 sofar did that get patched recently? 03:14 thePalindrome Could I get somebody to comment on game#1690 03:14 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1690 -- Screwdriver can't rotate blocks not "facedir" 03:16 sofar make a PR? 03:16 sofar it seems you have the answer right there 03:16 thePalindrome Alrighty, figured it'd be easier for people to apply as a one liner 03:16 thePalindrome Bit out of touch :P 03:16 sofar we still would have to see a PR first 03:18 thePalindrome shh, too sleepy for thought :P 03:20 thePalindrome Oh fun, there's been some changes to screwdriver in git :P 03:23 sofar pretty big changes, yes 03:26 thePalindrome game#1691 03:26 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1691 -- Allow non-native rotations if supported by targeted node. by thePalindrome 03:26 thePalindrome It still had the bug I noted, and I fixed it :P 03:28 sofar did ya test yer own code? 03:35 thePalindrome Doh, forgot an extra check :P 03:58 sofar you borked indentation style 03:58 sofar also, please squash your commits 03:58 sofar 4 commits for 5 lines of text is... yucky 03:59 thePalindrome Yeah, doing that now 03:59 thePalindrome Just wanted to make sure it passed CI :P 03:59 sofar you're also assigning a value twice to new_param2 now 04:00 sofar and the common case is to do it twice :( 04:00 sofar just do 04:00 thePalindrome The problem is I can't call fn 04:00 sofar `local new_param2` 04:00 sofar if fn then 04:00 sofar new_param2 = 04:00 sofar else 04:00 thePalindrome doi 04:00 sofar new_param2 = node.param2 04:00 sofar should be just as fast for the uncommon case 04:00 sofar and faster for the common case 04:01 thePalindrome Only slightly, since I'm not calling a method, but sure 04:01 sofar local new_param2 = fn and fn(pos, node, mode) or node.param2 04:01 sofar but that's terrible to read 04:02 thePalindrome aye 04:03 sofar do you know how to squash? 04:05 thePalindrome Found some tips on doing so, it's been far too long ;P 04:06 sofar are you using the git console client? 04:06 sofar linux? 04:06 thePalindrome yup 04:06 sofar ok so 04:07 sofar remember this one 04:07 sofar `git rebase -i HEAD~10` 04:07 thePalindrome I used the wrong advice first 04:07 sofar (10 is 10 commits back) 04:07 thePalindrome That's causing issues, since I can't push nor pull 04:07 thePalindrome oh wait, I can force fast forward 04:07 thePalindrome doy 04:07 sofar it'll give you the interactive rebase tool 04:07 sofar which is really simple to work with 04:07 sofar you can squash, fixup, drop and reorder commits in there really easy 04:09 thePalindrome Alrighty, squashed 04:10 sofar then `git push -f yourownremotename` 04:11 sofar try not to push to your own master branch 04:11 thePalindrome I realized I had to force the push, because the first advice suggested soft resetting head 04:11 thePalindrome Aye 04:11 thePalindrome I wasn't expecting more than a few lines, my bad 04:11 sofar if this is your only PR, sure 04:11 sofar but once you do more PRs, you're gonna need branches for each of the PRs 04:11 sofar ok I see 1 commit now 04:11 sofar good 04:11 sofar ya still borken da whitespace 04:12 sofar we use tabs 04:12 sofar edit 04:12 sofar git commit --amend mods/screwdriver/init.lua 04:12 sofar git push -f remotename 04:12 sofar also 04:12 sofar while you're at it 04:12 sofar break up the commit subject and message 04:13 sofar don't do a line over 80 characters for the subject if you can 04:13 sofar "Allow rotation for any node with on_rotate` 04:13 sofar "" 04:13 sofar "this also allows .... etc." 04:14 thePalindrome Had to look up how to do that 04:14 sofar 12 years of working with git 04:14 sofar you can ask me 04:15 sofar I used to train people how to use git 04:16 thePalindrome From all my editors the whitespace is the same, but github disagrees 04:16 * thePalindrome isn't used to dealing with conflicting whitespace 04:16 sofar the whitespace looks the same 04:16 sofar because you have tabs set to 4 spaces 04:16 sofar but you need to use tab characters, not spaces 04:17 sofar IOW, you may have to hire a few strong guys to talk to your editor 04:18 thePalindrome Honestly, it's more my fault for not understanding the configuration :P 04:21 thePalindrome Alrighty, that should be the last one 04:29 VanessaE HEAD is bork3d again 04:30 VanessaE compile failure, that is.. http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/24338477/ 04:33 thePalindrome Phew, for a minute I thought I did that :P 04:33 VanessaE trying to find the last good commit. 04:35 VanessaE ok, it's an incompatibility between luajit (pulled to HEAD 5 mins ago) and minetest. doesn't build at 94358a70 either (and I know that commit is good) 04:35 thePalindrome Interesting 04:39 VanessaE Minetest HEAD (ff4fef57) builds okay when I roll LuaJIT back to f50bf758 (where I had it this morning). 04:40 * VanessaE sighs and bisects 04:42 thePalindrome Isn't that fun :D 04:42 VanessaE at least I have a script to automate the build. 04:46 VanessaE dc320ca7 [...] is the first bad commit. 04:46 VanessaE Remove old Lua 5.0 compatibility defines. 04:50 VanessaE confirmed clean build with luajit at commit c29afcb1 04:54 VanessaE so, is this luajit's fault, or mt's fault? 04:56 VanessaE oh G*D how I hate the method the luajit guys use to browse a repo. 04:58 VanessaE http://repo.or.cz/luajit-2.0.git/blobdiff/c29afcb1a3f633fd970cf893d261d7f53728bc69..dc320ca70f2c5bb3977b82853bcee6dad2523d01:/src/lauxlib.h note the second to last line in the diff. 04:58 VanessaE oh, it's on github too. good. 06:18 nerzhul merging trivial #5540 06:18 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5540 -- [CSM] Add event on_connect player API lua by Dumbeldor 06:24 VanessaE nerzhul: it ain't CSM related, but you may wish to look at the logs (ending an hour an a half ago) 06:26 nerzhul i'm eating my breakfast with my wife will looking for this later 06:26 VanessaE ok. 06:26 VanessaE bon apetit :) 06:26 nerzhul ty 06:39 nerzhul VanessaE, what distro do you use ? 06:39 nerzhul and what are you non standard cmake compilation options ? 06:39 VanessaE Debian sid. 06:40 VanessaE and this is out I build, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/24338461/ 06:43 VanessaE is how* 06:44 VanessaE or wait, the server is debian sta[b]le. sid on my home PC. 06:45 nerzhul then problem is using a custom LuaJIT build (non packaged i mean), right ? 06:46 VanessaE correct 06:46 VanessaE specifically, something they did in LuaJIT broke Minetest 06:47 VanessaE looks like MT is relying on a Lua 5.0 symbol 06:47 VanessaE (or luajit devs screwed up) 06:47 nerzhul oh it's a LuaJIT problem not a MT problem ? for the symbol if i remember we can use lua 5.3 if needed 06:47 nerzhul then for symbols... strange 06:47 VanessaE It's a "I don't know which project is at fault" problem :) 06:48 VanessaE i.e. is MT at fault for using an outdated symbol? or is luajit at fault because they declared a symbol outdated that really isn't? 06:48 nerzhul then they break compat with MT, it's not a good thing, as you said it's their fault 06:48 nerzhul luaL_reg is standard 06:49 nerzhul https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html just search luaL_reg here 06:49 VanessaE ok 06:49 VanessaE I'll post a line note over there. 06:55 VanessaE wait a second.. 06:56 VanessaE nope, it's Minetest's fault 06:56 VanessaE both luaL_reg and luaL_Reg (cap/lower 'r') are being used in MT 06:57 VanessaE src/script/lua_api/ match luaL_reg (lower 'r') 06:58 VanessaE (the lua 5.3 manual you pointed me to specifies luaL_Reg, capital R) 06:59 VanessaE (as does the 5.1 manual) 07:03 nerzhul oh it's very subtile 07:04 VanessaE (whoever decided function names, symbols, etc ought to be case-sensitive should be shot :P ) 07:04 nerzhul #define luaL_reg luaL_Reg 07:04 nerzhul on my PC 07:05 nerzhul same thing in our Lua 5.1 bundle 07:05 nerzhul then the lowercase seems deprecated 07:05 VanessaE yes 07:05 nerzhul i will provide a patch for this then 07:06 VanessaE ok. 07:12 nerzhul okay it's just 31 occurs, i sent the trivial PR to CI and merge it after CI pass 07:12 VanessaE ok 07:14 nerzhul VanessaE, can you try https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/minetest/minetest/pull/5541.patch ? 07:14 VanessaE moment.. 07:16 VanessaE 07:18 VanessaE luajit at cced1786 and MT at 01f9d05f plus your fix, compiles clean. 07:18 * VanessaE gives it a quick run 07:20 VanessaE everything seems to be in order. lgtm 07:22 nerzhul nice, it's a trivial fix, i'm just waiting for travis 07:23 VanessaE ok. 07:24 VanessaE hard to imagine my little potato here would be able to outrun travis. 07:28 nerzhul okay merging it, only vlangrind build is in progress and there is no functionnal change 07:28 VanessaE ok 08:42 nerzhul merging #5539 08:42 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5539 -- Document that write_json will error on unserializable types. by raymoo 08:43 nerzhul note: i pushed a non github file permitting to build minetest on gitlab.com on various distro, this will permit at the end (not now) to have package build pipelines for daily builds 09:55 red-001 could someone review #5528 ? 09:55 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5528 -- Move chat command handling code from c++ to lua. by red-001 10:03 nerzhul red-001, can you rebase please ? 10:04 nerzhul to fix the mac osx build 10:06 red-001 sure 10:08 red-001 done 11:00 paramat #5519 is now tested and ready for review. nore Zeno` and all 11:00 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5519 -- Sneak: Add option for old move code by paramat 11:16 Zeno` I'm ok with it paramat. I would have preferred the old code to be in a different file but at this point *shrug* 11:19 paramat thanks for looking 11:53 sfan5 ~tell nerzhul what the fuck, you can't just push a pr without anyones approval whatsoever (#5542) 11:53 ShadowBot sfan5: O.K. 12:10 red-001 #5544 12:10 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5544 -- [CSM] add `on_item_use` by red-001 12:22 Zeno` #5542 12:22 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5542 -- Prepare for Linux daily build packages (using Gitlab.com CI) by nerzhul 12:43 kilbith I'm rather scared of the stability since nrzkt is so pushy these days 12:44 sfan5 celeron55: can i get a clarification on the rule about 2 coredevs agreeing on a pr 12:44 sfan5 can these 2 agreeing coredevs include the person who proposed the pr? 12:46 Krock ^ should only be allowed for trivial changes IMO 12:47 sfan5 trivial changes can be pushed without any approval if #-dev is notified prior 12:48 Krock oh good then. 12:49 Krock sfan5, "hm why does this code work without this then?" what exactly do you mean with "this"? 12:50 Krock surely it works without the manual collision entry but then it would allow players to evade being damaged 12:50 Krock since Y speed can be set to 0 here 12:51 sfan5 in the original code i don't see m_speed 12:52 sfan5 set* 12:52 sfan5 which also isn't needed since the cbox of the player is on the node 12:52 Krock m_speed.Y = MYMAX(m_speed.Y, 0); 12:52 sfan5 (and thus he won't fall down) 12:52 Krock // legacy behaviour that sometimes causes some weird slow sinking 12:52 sfan5 setting m_speed is only needed if you want to replicate the old behaviour with the bigger sneak_max 12:53 Krock yes, and that's why it is there 12:53 sfan5 in your code it isn't inside an if() for the sneak_glitch override, is it? 12:54 Krock ah right, also used for the new sneak collision boxes for flying in the air 12:54 sfan5 oh 12:54 sfan5 it can be useful to set m_speed to 0 in both cases (and in your case it's actually required) 12:55 sfan5 but to avoid any damage evasion i specifically avoided setting m_speed in the code 12:55 Krock yes I know. That's now solved by adding a seperate collision 12:55 Krock * "solved" 12:55 Krock brb. eating 12:59 celeron55 i have always thought it is irrelevant who makes a PR 12:59 celeron55 and some have always thought otherwise 13:00 celeron55 i don't see a reason to change my viewpoint and they don't see a reason to change theirs :P 13:05 Krock re 13:12 sfan5 it's just that in the past most(?) coredevs have handled this rule as "2 other coredevs need to agree on the pr" 13:14 paramat the way we have been working for 1-2 years is that one approval can come from the author if they're a core dev 13:14 Krock okay, moved some code and made sneak ladders unreasonable fast again in the recent commit. Not quite happy about this change 13:15 rubenwardy I'd say it depends on the PR complexity 13:15 rubenwardy If it's a refactor, then 2 others 13:16 rubenwardy if it's a small/medium modification in an area which isn't used much, and you've tested well, then 1 other is fine 13:16 rubenwardy however, I tend to err on caution and wait for 2 others 13:17 zorman2000 Hi all, sorry to bother you, I have an issue with minetest.find_nodes_in_area(). Is this the right channel to ask? 13:18 rubenwardy #minetest would be better 13:18 zorman2000 Ok, thanks rubenwardy 13:18 paramat however, confusingly, a core-dev author's own 'approval' is not counted in the 'one/two approvals' labels. so a PR by a core dev with 'one approval' actually has the necessary 2 13:18 sfan5 Krock: i'm also not happy with supporting sneak ladders generally but it is what it takes to get people to stop complaining 13:18 Krock but it's quite hard to decide what changes would require two other approvals 13:19 Krock sfan5, from what I've seen there's a pull to disable it by default.. I hoped to find a midway solution by slowing it down 13:24 paramat yes i will make a PR before release to make the ladder option in new code disabled by default 13:27 Zeno` 1 approval is ok if another dev made the PR 13:27 Zeno` any other way and it's a bit silly. 13:27 paramat there's also #5527 which makes 2-node sneak jump work but also manages to make simple sneak ladder work 13:27 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5527 -- Sneak glitch: Detect ledge for 2-node climb-up by paramat 13:28 Zeno` there are also the "subsystem maintainer" rules 13:28 rubenwardy deprecated 13:28 Zeno` I don't know why people want to forget these things 13:28 rubenwardy http://dev.minetest.net/Organisation 13:28 rubenwardy "2015-11-02: The subsystem maintainer method was officially taken out of use." 13:28 Zeno` yeah that's fine 13:29 Zeno` but the core dev PR only needing 1 other approval needs to stay 13:29 Zeno` it's always been that way 13:29 Zeno` and it's always worked well 13:30 paramat yes i would be concerned about the speed of dev if 2 'others' were required 13:46 red-001 could someone review #5492? 13:46 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5492 -- [CSM] Add local particles and particlespawners. by red-001 13:51 celeron55 you can always err on caution, nothing forces you to merge at 2 approvals 13:56 Krock red-001, there are still various code style errors, starting with "ParticleManager::stepSpawnersLocal" 13:58 Krock seems like my previous comment was marked as outdated 14:12 red-001 Krock, whats the code style issue with it? 14:13 Krock http://dev.minetest.net/Code_style_guidelines 14:13 Krock for () { 14:13 Krock } else { 14:13 Krock ^ in about that 14:13 red-001 the braces? 14:13 Krock braces, spaces and new lines 14:15 red-001 oh https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/5492/commits/cc1fcad6409f6812af9ae77b512fa5f4c8f9e9ca must have been the reason it got marked as outdated 14:20 Krock maybe, yeah. 14:30 red-001 Krock, are there any other code sytle issues? 14:30 red-001 style* 14:33 Krock why do you always increase the particle iterator manually inside the loop? 14:33 Krock example: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/5492/files#diff-e645b6869505fb7c2f21eed5098a56e4R501 14:37 red-001 copied existing code 14:39 Krock bad code :< 16:39 Krock rubenwardy, what kind of "problems" does it cause? (Topic: Store lagecy metadata pull) 16:40 rubenwardy see code snippet 16:41 rubenwardy https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/5531#issuecomment-292666198 16:52 Krock well, one of the values will always be overwritten. 16:53 Krock as much I can see the easiest "solution" for your snippet would be changing the behaviour of "c_content.cpp"'s "read_item" function 16:53 Krock where the metadata is deserialized AFTER reading the old metadata 16:54 Krock which could/does overwrite the legacy metadata 16:55 Krock this should have the same effect as your entire PR 16:58 Krock ( ^ rubenwardy ) 17:02 numzero finally I understood the problem 17:03 numzero it’s that a single value is made available in 2 places by ItemStack:to_table() 17:03 numzero and ItemStack(table) have to decide which one to use, if they differ 17:03 numzero correct? 17:06 Krock yep, that's the entire trouble 17:06 rubenwardy yeah 17:08 rubenwardy Krock's solution is option 1 here: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/5531#issuecomment-292668530 17:09 * numzero thinks 17:11 numzero well, in theory it’s possible to expose the whole ItemStack, including its meta, as a flat table 17:12 numzero so that there would be 3 special fields—"name", "count" and "wear"—while others would form the meta 17:13 numzero sounds a bit weird, but... 17:14 rubenwardy Just realised that stack:to_table() != stack:get_meta():to_table(), therefore you could modify stack:to_table() to not export the "" in the meta part, but just as `metadata` 17:15 numzero possible too 17:18 numzero actually that seems to be the shortest solution 17:21 kilbith I hope that PR has-been triple-checked before merging 17:23 rubenwardy #5546 17:23 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5546 -- Fix inability to change metadata using stack:to_table() by rubenwardy 17:23 rubenwardy compiling and testing now 17:25 numzero #5547 17:25 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5547 -- Item metadata compatibility by numberZero 17:26 numzero my is smaller :p 17:26 rubenwardy ew continue :) 17:27 Krock the pull recycling activists start crying now 17:29 numzero I hope all these PRs will be closed very soon 17:30 rubenwardy I don't care too much, tbh, closed mine 17:30 Krock sure, can _close_ them anytime. But they stay open to be reviewed and in the best case, merged. 17:30 rubenwardy Please may you use an imperative commit message? Ie: Fix ... 17:31 rubenwardy You'll notice that all commits apart from Nerzhul's do this https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commits/master 17:31 rubenwardy :) 17:32 Krock also a slightly more informative description wouldn't be too bad. 17:32 rubenwardy yeah, that too 17:36 numzero copied your description 17:53 Krock merging #5528 in 10 minutes 17:53 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5528 -- Move chat command handling code from c++ to lua. by red-001 18:28 Krock red-001, your most recent, change reverting commit makes it worse again >> PANIC << 18:28 red-001 I was getting segfaults due to the change 18:31 red-001 I will try and fix the segfault and get rid of the messy code tomorrow 18:31 Krock ok 19:02 Remy_ Hi ! I'm running some benchmark on sqlite3 storage. Have you got some protips ? I want to modify some PRAGMA setting, but it seems that it's static in the code (https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/b88595050f3af5ccac06aac331ead4ebdcb9deb9/src/database-sqlite3.cpp#L169) ... It will be posible to config that parameters in the futur ? 19:21 Krock Remy_, the closest pull request in that direction is https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/4420 19:22 Remy_ Thanks 19:22 Krock !next 19:22 ShadowBot Another satisfied customer. Next! 20:52 red-001 is there anyway to make sure gettext knows about strings in lua files? 20:52 red-001 I see there is a script for config files but is there one for lua files? 20:56 red-001 nvm 21:40 red-001 why is oldcoder trying to claim the trademark? 21:41 nore yeah, I'd like to know more about that as well 21:42 red-001 also I though prior use was ment to stop that 21:42 red-001 meant* 21:42 celeron55 it should stop it, but you can always lie and make a mess i guess 21:43 red-001 well if oldcoder wants to waste everyones time and money he is welcome to 21:44 celeron55 if someone in the US would like to spend their time making a trademark claim, /msg me; i don't expect anyone to want to, though 22:03 thePalindrome Knee-jerk reactions here: but thoughts on allowing SimpleSoundSpec to specify a pitch? 22:03 thePalindrome OpenAL supports it, and in my head older clients and servers would just ignore that field