Time Nick Message 02:08 ShadowNinja https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/933 This looks good to merge, it just requires some squashing and tweaking per my comment. 06:52 nore 29 open milestone issues for 0.4.8.... It will never be released 07:00 thexyz you can help it! 07:02 celeron55 most of those can be just removed from the milestone 07:03 celeron55 the milestone is pretty much useless 07:03 thexyz why? 07:04 celeron55 why what? 07:05 thexyz why the milestone is pretty much useless? 07:06 celeron55 because it's full of stuff that by no means is needed for 0.4.8, thus making it irrelevant 07:06 thexyz so what stuff is needed for 0.4.8 then? 07:07 celeron55 umm... some of the stuff in the milestone, especially bugs 07:08 thexyz so, feature freeze? 07:09 kahrl speaking of bugs, any news on #910? 07:10 thexyz I don't have any 07:10 celeron55 how about just renaming the milestone to 0.4.9 and creating a 0.4.8 that is sane in terms of what kind of workload developers can take 07:11 celeron55 and using the same rules in adding stuff to milestones as for pushing code upstream 07:11 kahrl the problem with that is that there is no log of who added stuff to milestones 07:12 celeron55 that could be worked around by requiring a notice in IRC with the issue number and name of milestone when an issue is added to a milestone 07:13 celeron55 that way any issue in a milestone not having such notice in IRC is invalid 07:13 celeron55 i hate bureaucracy like this though 07:13 kahrl perhaps add a command to MinetestBot? 07:13 celeron55 but if it's needed, then it's needed 07:14 kahrl /msg MinetestBot add_to_milestone 0.4.8 910 07:15 kahrl /msg MinetestBot milestone_log 0.4.8 07:15 celeron55 actually 07:15 celeron55 let's require a comment in the issue if it's added to a milestone 07:15 celeron55 that's simple and nicely linked to it 07:15 kahrl yeah that sounds good as well 07:16 celeron55 it's actually not even surprising that this milestone hasn't really worked because it's the first attempt in using such; maybe they'll start working with some carefully chosen rules (like this) 07:19 kahrl I'm not sure requiring two devs to agree is good 07:19 kahrl getting two devs to agree on any pull (made by a non-dev) is already an extremely slow process; any energy invested in that could be spent toward merging it 07:19 celeron55 i think that can be dropped if there just is a log 07:20 celeron55 (and commeting the issue is a good log) 07:20 celeron55 +n 07:22 kahrl okay so the rule is that any dev can add an issue/pull request to a milestone if he adds a comment that he added it, and a short reason why 07:22 kahrl everyone agree with that? 07:23 kahrl also I'll clear out the existing milestone 07:25 * sfan5 agrees with that 07:32 kahrl here is a backup of the milestone in case it is needed: http://paste.dy.fi/cXe 08:00 kahrl http://dev.minetest.net/Dev_Log#Milestone_rules 08:32 nore any thoughts on https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/pull/200 ? 09:45 celeron55 nore: looks fine to me 10:10 thexyz https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/933 10:13 PilzAdam thexyz, just commented on that :-) 10:16 thexyz okay, looks goot to me too 10:18 thexyz err, good 10:29 nore anyone else to agree on https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/pull/200 ? 10:31 kahrl nore, couldn't block that the server for a very long time when someone enters an area that was unloaded a very long time ago? 10:31 kahrl s/block that/that block 10:32 nore It would be a very long time, since as soon as the inventories are empty, the furnace_step function will return without doing anything 10:33 nore but I agree that it could 10:34 kahrl for example when somebody's env_meta.txt gets destroyed and he fixes that by copying the env_meta.txt from someone else 10:34 kahrl that could lead to a huge jump in game_time 10:35 nore so perhaps so not run more than 1200 seconds? (20 mins) 10:35 nore that would be ok for most item stacks 10:35 kahrl sounds fine 10:36 kahrl even 10 mins should be enough 10:37 nore done 10:37 thexyz is it the only thing that behaves like that? 10:37 nore thexyz, what do you mean, the only thing? 10:38 thexyz ABM 10:38 thexyz which fast forwards itself 10:38 nore for now, yes, but I could add that to farming too 10:39 thexyz I wonder if that will confuse user 10:40 nore I don't reckon so, and I reckon that users that could be confused by that are already confused... 10:40 nore but I could ff farming ABMs too 10:44 nore so, should I do the same for farming ABMs, or will it be merged like it is now? 10:45 nore kahrl and celeron55 agreed, so that makes 2 core devs... 10:45 kahrl nore, I'll test it quickly 10:45 nore ok 10:46 PilzAdam I dont like how things get inconsistent with that 10:46 PilzAdam other ABMs, like saplings growning, cant be changed in Lua to work when the block is unloaded 10:47 nore if sapling growing was done in Lua, it could be changed to have the same features too 10:48 nore since it does not run when the block is unloaded but simulates a run when the block is loaded again 10:49 PilzAdam if you think more general about that as "things happening in unloaded blocks", then you would need to simulate mobs, weather and other stuff too 10:50 kahrl test result: works and the 1200 limit is small enough to make it not noticeable on my machine (tested just one furnace) 10:51 nore about ABMs I have a question too: should it be possible to override builtin C ABMs in Lua? 10:52 PilzAdam ABMs should be generally moved from the core to Lua 10:54 nore I have a working version of tree growing in Lua, so that will be easy to move 10:55 PilzAdam by simulating things when loading the block you make the user think that things are working in unloaded blocks, so he expects e.g. carts to move in them too 10:55 PilzAdam and this is something that would be quite hard to code 10:56 PilzAdam but when you dont code that, then the user gets a feeling of inconsistency 10:56 PilzAdam so it would be easier to say that things only happen near the user 12:36 jin_xi 12:43 proller -- *** Detected git version 0.4.4-1093-g966df2d *** 12:43 proller -- *** Detected git version 0.4.7-MSVC-536-g966df2d *** 12:43 proller wat 12:58 VanessaE I forget, what is MSVC again? 12:59 werwerwer microsoft visual c++ 12:59 VanessaE more to the point, why does my copy show MSVC when I built it in Linux? 13:13 kahrl it's because the tag is called 0.4.7-MSVC 13:14 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:17 proller prestotron55, leave us pleae 13:17 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:18 proller no, noobs can be on #minetest only 13:18 kahrl proller: how did you get it to show the 0.4.4-* version? 13:19 proller kahrl, -next 13:19 kahrl I checked out 966df2d and it only showed 0.4.7-MSVC-536-g966df2d 13:19 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:20 proller your talk always irrevelent 13:21 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:21 proller kahrl, https://github.com/proller/minetest/tree/next 13:21 kahrl proller: I tried that 13:21 proller prestotron55, newer write me pm and leave this channel 13:22 proller git describe --always --tag --dirty 13:22 proller 0.4.4-1093-g966df2d 13:22 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:23 proller ok, i will call you "noob17" 13:24 kahrl proller: prints 0.4.7-MSVC-536-g966df2d for me 13:24 kahrl proller: stop the offtopic... 13:24 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:25 proller kahrl, updating -next ... 13:27 proller 0.4.4-1094-gf5e4f2f 13:29 kahrl what git version are you using? maybe they fixed some bug 13:29 proller 1.8.4 13:29 kahrl 1.8.1.5 here 13:33 proller and +set(VERSION_EXTRA "next" CACHE STRING "Stuff to append to version string") -- ignored 13:33 kahrl that shouldn't happen 13:34 kahrl how is VERSION_EXTRA set in your cmake cache? 13:35 kahrl they changed something with git describe in 1.8.4 - they added a --first-parent option 13:35 kahrl what does this print? git describe --always --tag --dirty --first-parent 13:36 proller https://github.com/proller/minetest/compare/next_tools#diff-af3b638bc2a3e6c650974192a53c7291L10 13:36 proller 0.4.4-523-gf5e4f2f 13:36 proller ^--first-parent 13:36 VanessaE just fyi, that prints 0.4.4-418-g521eb5e for me (!?) 13:37 kahrl what the heck 13:37 kahrl I don't understand why it would do that 13:38 kahrl proller: about VERSION_EXTRA, I meant how it is set in CMakeCache.txt 13:38 proller --first-parent 13:38 proller oops 13:38 proller VERSION_EXTRA:STRING=next 13:40 VanessaE (not set, for me) 13:41 kahrl oh, I know what it is :/ 13:41 proller bug? 13:41 kahrl yeah 13:41 kahrl forgot to pass VERSION_EXTRA to the manually run cmake file 13:42 kahrl https://gist.github.com/kahrl/6752628 13:42 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:43 kahrl umm... 13:43 kahrl I guess a dev knows how to compile minetest 13:43 proller prestotron55, why you so stupid? 13:43 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:44 prestotron55 [deleted] 13:50 kahrl proller: that should fix the issue with VERSION_EXTRA, but I still don't understand why git describe behaves so weird 13:51 kahrl I mean it is documented as "finds the most recent tag that is reachable from a commit" 13:51 kahrl 0.4.7-MSVC is surely a tag reachable from next, no? 13:53 proller maybe yes 13:53 proller not only from next, from every branch 13:53 kahrl I see it in git log so I would think so 13:57 kahrl it appears "latest" means "reachable by lowest number of intermediate commits" 13:58 kahrl so if you merged a branch based on 0.4.4, that may make 0.4.4 appear closed to HEAD than 0.4.7-MSVC 13:58 kahrl s/closed/closer 13:59 kahrl I don't know why it gives different output for you than for me, though 13:59 PilzAdam I guess thats another reason to use reabase and not merge? 13:59 kahrl indeed 14:00 proller first reason 14:03 kahrl I'll merge the VERSION_EXTRA fix then 14:03 kahrl well, rebase :P 14:03 proller but on -next git rebase master cause lot of conflicts 14:05 PilzAdam resolve them 14:05 proller wat! 14:06 proller its scriopt 14:06 proller resolve 100+ conflicts on every -next make? 14:06 PilzAdam ehm, if you have rebased it once its done 14:06 PilzAdam fix your script 14:06 proller https://github.com/proller/minetest/network 14:07 kahrl I thought the script started from current master and merged various feature branches 14:07 proller try it yourself first 14:07 proller yes 14:07 kahrl I don't see what rebase would accomplish 14:10 proller -- *** Will build version 0.4.7-next *** 14:10 proller okay 14:18 kahrl proller: please post a comment on a pull request / issue when you add it to the milestone 14:18 kahrl mentioning that you did it and why 14:18 kahrl http://dev.minetest.net/Dev_Log#Milestone_rules 14:20 proller ok 14:20 PilzAdam proller, #882 is just too big, I think it cant be merged before 0.4.8; we should merge #911 as a fix for range and then realease 0.4.8 like this 14:20 PilzAdam *too big as a fix for the current problems with range 14:21 proller it can make glitches with current leveled code 14:25 PilzAdam I dont think that we need 327 additions and 168 deletions to fix some minor glitches 14:26 PilzAdam and there are also major problems with the big patch 14:27 proller what major 14:27 PilzAdam see my comment on the pull request 14:29 kahrl why is there a reference to walkable in the mesh making code? 14:29 kahrl walkable isn't meant to have a graphical effect 14:31 kahrl solidness != 2 would be better, I guess 15:12 kahrl what should I work on next for 0.4.8? e.g. libmtmap, httpfetch, formspec_table? 15:13 nore I'd like formspec_table... 15:13 PilzAdam httpfetch 15:13 PilzAdam libmtmap can wait, it doesnt need to be in 0.4.8 15:13 VanessaE httpfetch. 15:14 ShadowNinja httpfetch, folowed by libmtmap. 15:14 kahrl ok, let's see here 15:14 PilzAdam the formspec thing should be done prior 0.4.8, since its needed in the mainmenu 15:14 PilzAdam so it comes before libmtmap 15:14 nore and what about fixing entity duplication...? Has anyone found where it comes from? 15:15 kahrl I did the httpfetch core, client media fetch, async serverlist fetch 15:16 kahrl should the modstore interface be done before 0.4.8? 15:16 kahrl because I haven't looked at that at all and there are pending pull requests on that by sapier 15:16 PilzAdam that needs a lot of work, and moddb too; I guess it has to wait 15:19 kahrl I guess we'll keep l_get_modstore_details and l_get_modstore_list for the moment 15:20 kahrl (the plan is to use httpfetch and parse_json and do the rest in lua) 15:20 ShadowNinja I have a few pulls that have been agreed to but not rebased/merged/cherry-picked. 15:21 ShadowNinja We need serialize_json to go with it. 15:22 kahrl there hasn't been any need for writing json yet 15:22 ShadowNinja I have use for it. 15:24 kahrl what is it? 15:25 ShadowNinja Faster and more standardized data saving than minetest.serialize, possibly smaller and no code can be embeded. 15:27 ShadowNinja I don't have anything that comunicates data structures with minetest yet, but I do have a idea for one. Can you send POST data with httpfetch_async? 15:27 kahrl I prefer if storage files use simple text over json or minetest.serialize, but ok. 15:27 kahrl oh yes, POST is possible 15:28 PilzAdam ShadowNinja, you mean Jeija's RL mesecons? 15:28 sfan5 heh 15:30 ShadowNinja kahrl: But then adding features can be more difficult as the read/write functions need to be modified, and storing strings with newlines and spaces in them makes it difficult. 15:31 ShadowNinja serializing involves two short functions that you don't have to change. 15:33 kahrl if your strings are simple you can use Settings 15:33 kahrl but yes, I see the problem with newlines 15:37 kahrl ShadowNinja: which of your open pulls has been agreed on? 16:06 pitriss hi, I have question about todays build of MT.. That version string is good thing.. but on my debian box it tells me that i used msvc.. which is apparently lie.. 16:06 PilzAdam pitriss, the tag is just called 0.4.7-MSVC 16:06 PilzAdam it doesnt say "you have used MSVC" 16:06 pitriss ahh.. 16:07 pitriss okay, i was bit shocked about that MSVC in linux.. 16:07 prestotron55 [deleted] 16:09 VanessaE This is off-topic for this channel. 16:09 prestotron55 [deleted] 16:09 VanessaE no. 16:09 prestotron55 [deleted] 16:10 VanessaE this channel is specifically intended for core engine development 16:10 VanessaE C++ stuff and related, not for mods. 16:10 prestotron55 [deleted] 16:18 celeron55 ShadowNinja: if you need json, there are multiple small pure-lua json libraries 16:19 celeron55 which means there's no particular need to hurry with that in core 16:20 celeron55 should be done eventually though 16:52 flecha hello! is there a way to make server reload scripts (mods) without closeing and reopening it? 16:53 jin_xi i dont think so 16:53 flecha =( 17:02 celeron55 technically some kind of a soft restart wouldn't be impossible (reloading everything without dropping clients), but doesn't exist 17:02 ShadowNinja kahrl: The is_protected one. *checks for others* 17:04 BlockMen why does the formspec pull need a rebase? 17:04 BlockMen *or is tagged with it 17:06 ShadowNinja kahrl: Hmmm, I guess that is all. But you could formally agree/disagree with the others.