| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:17 |
|
Zeno` joined #minetest-dev |
| 00:25 |
|
crazyR joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:16 |
Wayward_One |
Zeno`: yes, i still have the lag problem with singleplayer :/ |
| 02:49 |
Zeno` |
is it real? :) |
| 02:49 |
Zeno` |
i.e. remove the mod that shows the lag and use /status instead |
| 02:50 |
|
Kalabasa joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:51 |
|
Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:51 |
Zeno` |
It'd be nice to get this nailed. Another question might be: how does the performance of HEAD compare to 0.4.11 at release? Or even 0.4.10 |
| 03:55 |
|
Fritigern joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:08 |
|
alexxs joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:42 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:29 |
Zeno` |
Lucky Tesseract gets to check if his own patch works... dunno how that works |
| 05:32 |
Tesseract |
Zeno`: I don't feel like blowing a day setting up an Android build env, so I just asked someone that already had it set up. |
| 05:32 |
Zeno` |
That's what I meant by "not sure how that works" |
| 05:33 |
Zeno` |
I wish I'd written down what I did to make my Android build env. Not sure if I have the energy to set it up again |
| 05:34 |
Zeno` |
well /set font_size 10 crashes... I suppose I'd better write an issue since I can't fix it myself |
| 05:36 |
Zeno` |
all these /set this and that, that people can do gives me a headache |
| 05:49 |
|
chchjesus joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:50 |
|
chrisf joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:51 |
Zeno` |
I don't suppose anyone knows why RBA added: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/master/src/itemdef.cpp#L375 ?? |
| 05:57 |
Zeno` |
It probably doesn't do anything anymore |
| 05:58 |
kahrl |
probably because the RTT thing uses hardware lighting and the shaders don't support that |
| 05:59 |
Zeno` |
I think he must have worked around it some other way because in map_block_mesh.cpp "enable_shaders" is cached |
| 05:59 |
Zeno` |
and not updated if g_settings->set("enable.... is called |
| 06:00 |
Zeno` |
The reason I bring it up is that the g_settings->get/set/set is expensive |
| 06:01 |
Zeno` |
and I can't find where it's being used anyway (unless I'm blind) |
| 06:01 |
kahrl |
where is it cached? |
| 06:01 |
kahrl |
except for the per-instance m_enable_shaders |
| 06:03 |
Zeno` |
yeah, the per instance |
| 06:03 |
kahrl |
well, the code in itemdef.cpp creates a new instance |
| 06:03 |
* Zeno` |
sets breakpoint |
| 06:03 |
kahrl |
line 385 |
| 06:04 |
Zeno` |
yeah |
| 06:04 |
Zeno` |
what is RTT? |
| 06:04 |
kahrl |
render to texture |
| 06:04 |
Zeno` |
ah ok |
| 06:04 |
kahrl |
or round trip time :P |
| 06:05 |
|
Megaf joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:05 |
Zeno` |
I knew the second definition but it didn't fit with the context :P |
| 06:06 |
Zeno` |
it might be worth adding another parameter to the MapBlockMesh::MapBlockMesh() I think |
| 06:06 |
kahrl |
yeah, I'd like to remove the workaround as well, mostly because it's a case of using global state to fix a local problem |
| 06:06 |
kahrl |
which is almost always bad |
| 06:07 |
Zeno` |
yeah that's what's worried me more ... I called it "using a setting as a variable", which I guess is the same as your fancier description :) |
| 06:07 |
kahrl |
I got it from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2008/12/11/9193695.aspx :) |
| 06:09 |
kahrl |
it should be OK in this case, since only the main thread is probably interested in the enable_shaders setting, but I'm not even sure about that |
| 06:09 |
est31 |
as there is now a freeze branch, can you consider merging #2225 ? |
| 06:09 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2225 -- Fixes for minetest.get_(all_)craft_recipe(s) by gregorycu |
| 06:10 |
kahrl |
but yeah an additional MapBlockMesh parameter would be nicer |
| 06:10 |
kahrl |
perhaps a flag in MeshMakeData |
| 06:11 |
Zeno` |
I'm just wondering about the best way to approach it. I don't like adding a parameter with a default value to the default ctor |
| 06:11 |
Zeno` |
oh it's not default dtor anyway |
| 06:11 |
Zeno` |
heh |
| 06:13 |
kahrl |
move m_enable_shaders from MapBlockMesh to MeshMakeData? |
| 06:16 |
Zeno` |
hmm |
| 06:18 |
Zeno` |
hmm, hmm, hmm |
| 06:18 |
kahrl |
are you trying to summon a certain dev? :P |
| 06:19 |
Zeno` |
no |
| 06:19 |
Zeno` |
trying to think |
| 06:19 |
Zeno` |
hahha |
| 06:20 |
Zeno` |
his nick is the name of my thinking word which is... hmm |
| 06:21 |
* VanessaE |
plays the Jeopardy theme for Zeno` |
| 06:21 |
VanessaE |
good morning. |
| 06:21 |
Zeno` |
And I am thinking becayse I'm wondering if I should take your advice or leave my current solution haha |
| 06:21 |
Zeno` |
guten morgen |
| 06:22 |
Zeno` |
current solution is https://gist.github.com/Zeno-/61a7ec602dc6860b57a5 (with tidying up) |
| 06:24 |
kahrl |
with the MeshMakeData solution you can remove another unneeded g_settings->getBool |
| 06:25 |
Zeno` |
true |
| 06:25 |
Zeno` |
ok, that's settled then |
| 06:31 |
Zeno` |
MeshMakeData doesn't seem to be used a lot |
| 06:31 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:31 |
kahrl |
3 times as far as I know: from client.cpp, itemdef.cpp, wieldmesh.cpp |
| 06:32 |
Zeno` |
I'm not complaining :) I was expecting more |
| 06:33 |
kahrl |
well there aren't that many reasons to make a mesh from a mapblock ;) |
| 06:36 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:36 |
Zeno` |
sane reasoning does not always count |
| 06:36 |
Zeno` |
so, we're good to go adding commits to master? |
| 06:36 |
Zeno` |
and bug fixes etc to that freeze branch? |
| 06:37 |
kahrl |
yeah |
| 06:37 |
nrzkt |
oh yeah ! |
| 06:37 |
Zeno` |
nice |
| 06:38 |
Zeno` |
so I should be able to cache "enable_shaders" at a much higher level.. even better |
| 06:39 |
Calinou |
cache ALL the things! |
| 06:39 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:39 |
nrzkt |
cache me please :D |
| 06:40 |
Zeno` |
Calinou, trying to. Just making some small changes to make it reality ;) |
| 06:40 |
kahrl |
one thing I wonder about is tags |
| 06:40 |
kahrl |
is it a problem if the 0.4.12 tag points to a commit that is in a deleted branch? |
| 06:40 |
kahrl |
and never was in the master branch? |
| 06:40 |
nrzkt |
commits must be both in 0.4.12 branch and master |
| 06:41 |
kahrl |
nrzkt, but a tag can't point to two commits |
| 06:41 |
nrzkt |
and after for the release feature freeze must be merged into stable 0.4 |
| 06:41 |
nrzkt |
no, but commit is same |
| 06:41 |
kahrl |
we don't merge |
| 06:41 |
kahrl |
rebase only |
| 06:41 |
Zeno` |
I thought the branch would just stay |
| 06:41 |
nrzkt |
look |
| 06:41 |
nrzkt |
https://github.com/nerzhul/ocsms/commit/c3b55fbde910c1dfb88a95bb41f0e9f83dbc33cc |
| 06:42 |
nrzkt |
https://github.com/nerzhul/ocsms/commits/stable |
| 06:42 |
nrzkt |
master & stable |
| 06:42 |
Zeno` |
i.e. rename the branch after it's not frozen anymore |
| 06:42 |
Zeno` |
then there is no point to a tag... is there? |
| 06:43 |
Zeno` |
oh |
| 06:43 |
Zeno` |
could do it that way also |
| 06:43 |
nrzkt |
pull feature freeze in stable-0.4 |
| 06:43 |
nrzkt |
it's not a merge |
| 06:43 |
Zeno` |
and have tags in the "stable" branch |
| 06:43 |
nrzkt |
it's only a copy :) |
| 06:44 |
nrzkt |
because there is no way to have conflicts, but master must have the same commit, be careful |
| 06:44 |
Zeno` |
anyway, I'll bbl... must do my exercise so I can sleep properly |
| 06:45 |
kahrl |
https://github.com/nerzhul/ocsms/commit/2b0701ccc734acfa86151ae312120096356f86a1 |
| 06:45 |
kahrl |
is that not a merge? |
| 07:02 |
|
ImQ009 joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:18 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:31 |
|
linuxtardis joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:51 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:55 |
nrzkt |
kahrl, yes i use it some times :) |
| 07:55 |
nrzkt |
why using only rebase and not merge, if travis said it's good ? |
| 07:56 |
nrzkt |
and this merge comes from PR accepted, not merge between my branches :) |
| 07:57 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:58 |
JakubVanek |
rebase makes linear history, not sure about merge |
| 07:59 |
nrzkt |
sure, merge let the commit at its date in history, but merge is shown at proper date |
| 07:59 |
hmmmm |
hey guys, what are the advantages to mingw builds exactly?? |
| 08:00 |
nrzkt |
compile for windows on unix |
| 08:00 |
hmmmm |
huh |
| 08:00 |
Calinou |
free compiler |
| 08:00 |
Calinou |
no shady optimizations |
| 08:00 |
* Calinou |
nuff said |
| 08:00 |
nrzkt |
can #2209 and #2214 be merged into master ? They are little commits, easy to read :) |
| 08:00 |
hmmmm |
calinou, visual studio is free |
| 08:00 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2209 -- Little performance improvement: use getPlayer(peer_id) instead of getPlayer(playername) by nerzhul |
| 08:00 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2214 -- Performance improvement -> Craftdef.cpp: Improve loop and mathematics for CraftDefinitionShaped::check by nerzhul |
| 08:00 |
Calinou |
it isn't |
| 08:00 |
JakubVanek |
i586-mingw32msvc toolchain |
| 08:00 |
hmmmm |
maybe it's not free as in freedom but neither is clang using that argument |
| 08:00 |
nrzkt |
windows is not free |
| 08:01 |
|
est31 joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:01 |
Calinou |
it's proprietary |
| 08:01 |
hmmmm |
visual studio express + windows platform SDK is freeware |
| 08:01 |
Calinou |
;) |
| 08:01 |
Calinou |
and we don't want your “freeware†|
| 08:01 |
hmmmm |
i wonder if we should start trying out icc builds |
| 08:02 |
Calinou |
nope. |
| 08:02 |
Calinou |
just nope. |
| 08:02 |
Calinou |
it's Intel-biased and suffers from the same problems as MSVC |
| 08:02 |
Calinou |
no one uses ICC in the free software world, too :P |
| 08:02 |
hmmmm |
or maybe it produces the fastest code which is something very desirable |
| 08:02 |
Calinou |
it probably doesn't, too |
| 08:03 |
Calinou |
try out Clang? |
| 08:03 |
hmmmm |
clang is still immature vs. gcc in terms of performance |
| 08:03 |
hmmmm |
if it can't beat gcc, how can it even have a chance against icc? |
| 08:04 |
hmmmm |
when push comes to shove, people tend to not really give a crap about 'freedom' and end up using the technically best tool for the job |
| 08:04 |
Calinou |
but you're the one shoving proprietary software on people here |
| 08:05 |
hmmmm |
by compiling things using a certain compiler? :/ |
| 08:05 |
Calinou |
compilers ought to be free, because nasty stuff happens otherwise |
| 08:05 |
hmmmm |
our code is free |
| 08:05 |
Calinou |
yes, proprietary compilers are evil and biased |
| 08:05 |
Calinou |
it is widely known that ICC cheats at benchmarks |
| 08:05 |
hmmmm |
maybe they should be using a free operating system if they're so worried about freedom |
| 08:05 |
hmmmm |
i don't understand the rationale behind using mingw builds because it was built using a "free" compiler when every other aspect of their platform is nonfree |
| 08:06 |
hmmmm |
I'm not going to do MSVC builds.. it's just added work |
| 08:06 |
hmmmm |
err, MinGW builds |
| 08:06 |
hmmmm |
for this time around anyway |
| 08:06 |
Calinou |
cross-compilation is an useful upside |
| 08:06 |
|
kilbith joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:14 |
nrzkt |
hmmmm, in the future i can help minetest by do an automated task on my jenkins instance is that could help |
| 08:16 |
Calinou |
we could have some kind of CI for daily builds, yes |
| 08:16 |
Calinou |
post it on forum once it is set up |
| 08:16 |
Calinou |
and dev wiki |
| 08:17 |
nrzkt |
ofc, i'm using FreeBSD for my jenkins, then i could build for Windows & Linux (and also build .debs :) ) |
| 08:17 |
hmmmm |
wait, i though travis-ci was fixed |
| 08:18 |
hmmmm |
grr, seems like I can't use static libraries |
| 08:18 |
hmmmm |
welp, need to recompile ogg/vorbis/vorbisfile AGAIN |
| 08:19 |
JakubVanek |
ogg/vorbis/... in visual studio are hell |
| 08:20 |
hmmmm |
haha |
| 08:20 |
hmmmm |
no they're ok |
| 08:20 |
hmmmm |
you want to know true hell? try compiling leveldb for windows |
| 08:21 |
hmmmm |
so 99% of people who run minetest on windows are going to be fine with sqlite because it's likely they're not running any serious servers, but rather connecting to servers |
| 08:21 |
nrzkt |
xD, troll spotted :p but i think you are right |
| 08:22 |
JakubVanek |
maybe ogg in mingw; i don't know leveldb well |
| 08:25 |
hmmmm |
weird |
| 08:25 |
hmmmm |
out of all the libraries so far i seem to be having the most trouble with gettext |
| 08:25 |
hmmmm |
on windows is gettext and iconv supposed to be combined into a single libintl.dll? |
| 08:26 |
hmmmm |
i think i got this one from the official GTK website |
| 08:31 |
|
Guest4222 joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:40 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: I don't think so; I see both libintl.dll and libiconv.dll in older minetest msvc builds |
| 08:41 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: CMakeLists.txt looks for a iconv dll as well |
| 08:41 |
hmmmm |
yeah i had to download iconv separately |
| 08:41 |
kahrl |
did you manage to build it? (and gettext) |
| 08:42 |
est31 |
dunno what latest HEAD commit wanted to achieve, but didnt work for me |
| 08:42 |
est31 |
lifebar still drawn too low |
| 08:42 |
hmmmm |
I downloaded the binaries from gtk |
| 08:42 |
hmmmm |
in any case I'm getting weird errors now |
| 08:43 |
hmmmm |
c:\users\b\desktop\mtbuild\minetest\src\cguittfont\irrUString.h(3864) : error C2039: 'unary_function' : is not a member of 'std' |
| 08:43 |
hmmmm |
i guess it's trying to build with C++11??? |
| 08:44 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:44 |
hmmmm |
C++11 shouldn't be in visual C++ 2008 though |
| 08:44 |
hmmmm |
what's going on |
| 08:44 |
kahrl |
ah I see, they're not as horribly outdated as the official gettext msvc build |
| 08:45 |
kahrl |
I didn't know about them when I tried to build minetest so I started making my own visual studio project :S |
| 08:46 |
kahrl |
https://github.com/kahrl/gettext-msvc |
| 08:46 |
hmmmm |
hrmm i don't understand this |
| 08:46 |
kahrl |
(got bored, so ^^ is a bit incomplete, notably msgfmt is missing) |
| 08:46 |
hmmmm |
did I not configure it right or is xCGUITTFont.cpp broken under windows? |
| 08:47 |
hmmmm |
looking at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243444 |
| 08:47 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: well, people have managed to compile it... |
| 08:49 |
|
crazyR_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:52 |
|
Guest4222 left #minetest-dev |
| 08:53 |
|
gregorycw joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:53 |
|
Zeno` joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:54 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: apparently for some people #include <functional> is needed, https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7033&start=50 |
| 08:55 |
|
gregorycw left #minetest-dev |
| 08:55 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:56 |
Zeno` |
kahrl, I'm preparing to merge #2119 |
| 08:56 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2119 -- [patch 1/4] Network rework: Rewrite client/server packet handling & packet reading by nerzhul |
| 08:56 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: std::unary_function is not a C++11 thing, in fact it has been deprecated in C++11 |
| 08:56 |
nrzkt |
oh yeah |
| 08:56 |
Zeno` |
it's been running on my server for 24 days and ran on VanessaE's servers until last week |
| 08:56 |
hmmmm |
right |
| 08:57 |
Zeno` |
hmmmm is awake? :-o |
| 08:57 |
nrzkt |
don't forget little fixes like #2214 and #2209 |
| 08:57 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2214 -- Performance improvement -> Craftdef.cpp: Improve loop and mathematics for CraftDefinitionShaped::check by nerzhul |
| 08:57 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2209 -- Little performance improvement: use getPlayer(peer_id) instead of getPlayer(playername) by nerzhul |
| 08:57 |
Zeno` |
nrzkt, I'll do a few at a time (those that I've tested) |
| 08:57 |
Zeno` |
2119 is surely thoroughly tested by now ;) |
| 08:59 |
kahrl |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/2119/files#diff-60f7e3708240135081fe3828dea97c93R351 is a bit ridiculous :P |
| 09:00 |
kahrl |
but there's no good way around that I guess |
| 09:00 |
Zeno` |
That's how I'd probably have done it in the first place |
| 09:01 |
Zeno` |
most of my "toy machines" (virtual machines) use a similar method |
| 09:01 |
Zeno` |
void handleCommand_EyeOffset(ToClientPacket* pkt) <--- I'd prefer the * to be against the parameter name |
| 09:03 |
Zeno` |
anyway, I have to eat. I plan to merge this 2119 in the next 8 hours (just giving you all a heads up and a chance to object) ;) |
| 09:03 |
Zeno` |
afk for a bit |
| 09:03 |
hmmmm |
nrzkt, I heard you wanted to change the protocol to use TCP |
| 09:04 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:04 |
hmmmm |
TCP isn't used because it ensures in-order-delivery, and in doing so, creates much higher latencies than acceptable |
| 09:04 |
hmmmm |
this is a conscious design decision and we don't really think it's a good idea to change it |
| 09:05 |
nrzkt |
hmmmm |
| 09:05 |
nrzkt |
look at this PR and you'll see many packets are sent as reliable, then the order is important. |
| 09:05 |
nrzkt |
the TCP overhead is less important than the minetest TCP over UDP |
| 09:05 |
|
gregorycu left #minetest-dev |
| 09:06 |
nrzkt |
and for example, world of warcraft uses TCP |
| 09:06 |
hmmmm |
huh?? |
| 09:06 |
Zeno` |
I'll let you two debate that one :D |
| 09:06 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:06 |
hmmmm |
just because a packet is sent as reliable does not mean the order is important |
| 09:06 |
kilbith |
sapier wanted to use TCP too |
| 09:06 |
nrzkt |
but we can do a mix, and use a TCP connection and a UDP connection together |
| 09:06 |
|
JakubVanek_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:06 |
nrzkt |
TCP for reliable and UDP for nobody cares packets |
| 09:07 |
nrzkt |
TCP permit to use proper sessions on the server too |
| 09:09 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:11 |
|
est31 joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:13 |
hmmmm |
pfffff |
| 09:13 |
hmmmm |
well I'm stuck |
| 09:13 |
hmmmm |
to fix KB946040 I need to apply a hotfix, but the link is broken |
| 09:13 |
kahrl |
hmmmm: #include <functional> did not work? |
| 09:13 |
hmmmm |
no this is a pdb problem |
| 09:14 |
|
jin_xi joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:15 |
|
FR^2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:17 |
hmmmm |
kahrl: including <functional> did solve the xCGUITTFont.cpp problem. now it seems all that's left is the pdb error and this libintl.h error |
| 09:18 |
hmmmm |
rather that's not a libintl.h error, hmm |
| 09:18 |
kahrl |
why does it even try to build a pdb in release mode? |
| 09:19 |
hmmmm |
i don't really know, but we do need them from now on since the msvc builds generate minidumps on crash |
| 09:19 |
kahrl |
oh, right |
| 09:19 |
hmmmm |
so we don't have to go through the "can you please get a backtrace of the crash" rigamarole with users experiencing problems |
| 09:20 |
hmmmm |
ahhhhh ok |
| 09:20 |
hmmmm |
so for whatever reason WinNls.h is included without Windows.h in gettext.cpp |
| 09:20 |
hmmmm |
after I fix this problem I'm only going to have 5000 linker errors :) |
| 09:21 |
kahrl |
:) |
| 09:21 |
hmmmm |
on the bright side, once I get this rig working I'll presumably never have to redo it again |
| 09:21 |
kahrl |
I wouldn't count on it |
| 09:22 |
kahrl |
once we switch to C++11, msvc 2008 won't do :P |
| 09:22 |
hmmmm |
:( |
| 09:24 |
hmmmm |
here's one: ..\..\minetest\src\gettext.cpp(68) : error C2065: 'LOCALE_SENGLISHLANGUAGENAME' : undeclared identifier |
| 09:24 |
kahrl |
that was also mentioned in the thread I linked, let me check |
| 09:25 |
hmmmm |
yea |
| 09:26 |
hmmmm |
i see it |
| 09:29 |
hmmmm |
ah shoot look at how late it is |
| 09:29 |
hmmmm |
gotta go NOW |
| 09:29 |
nrzkt |
xD |
| 09:31 |
Zeno` |
oh, that reminds me... I have to report the CGUITTFont.cpp segfault |
| 09:31 |
Zeno` |
and assign it to kahrl |
| 09:32 |
* Zeno` |
hides |
| 09:32 |
kahrl |
you better hide |
| 09:34 |
* Zeno` |
triple hides |
| 09:35 |
Zeno` |
maybe some things should not be changeable using /set... but that's a big can of worms :( |
| 09:37 |
Zeno` |
kahrl, what is hmmmm doing? |
| 09:37 |
Zeno` |
building with msvc? |
| 09:37 |
kahrl |
well he was before he left |
| 09:38 |
Zeno` |
could krock be of help here? |
| 09:38 |
est31 |
as we now have a release branch, can we merge #2225 ? |
| 09:38 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2225 -- Fixes for minetest.get_(all_)craft_recipe(s) by gregorycu |
| 09:38 |
kahrl |
he might |
| 09:39 |
Zeno` |
est31, has it been reviewed and tested? |
| 09:39 |
est31 |
I have tested it. |
| 09:40 |
est31 |
I've brought this up before, they said It was ok, but I should come back when the freeze is over |
| 09:40 |
jin_xi |
krocks pasted solution is this: -#include <WinNls.h> |
| 09:40 |
jin_xi |
+#include <windows.h> |
| 09:40 |
jin_xi |
but dunno if it applies here |
| 09:40 |
kahrl |
we shouldn't discuss #2225 here |
| 09:40 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2225 -- Fixes for minetest.get_(all_)craft_recipe(s) by gregorycu |
| 09:41 |
kahrl |
gregorycu wants it to be discussed on github only |
| 09:41 |
est31 |
when you come up with an issue, I'll notify that on github |
| 09:42 |
est31 |
note* |
| 09:50 |
kahrl |
Zeno`: well it seems obvious why /set font_size changes |
| 09:50 |
kahrl |
FontEngine::readSettings calls cleanCache which drops the old fonts |
| 09:51 |
kahrl |
for example the m_font in GUIChatConsole, which the latter will happily continue to use |
| 09:52 |
kahrl |
whoops s/changes/crashes |
| 09:53 |
kahrl |
if you comment out iter->second->drop() in cleanCache, the segfault disappears (but of course there's a nice leak) |
| 09:54 |
Zeno` |
I know *why* it happens I just don't know how to fix it properly ;) |
| 09:55 |
kahrl |
ah |
| 09:58 |
kahrl |
how about https://gist.github.com/kahrl/24d5c037e1688b860918 |
| 10:01 |
kahrl |
btw, is the font supposed to become extremely blocky when I change font_size in-game? |
| 10:03 |
nrzkt |
Zeno` #2119 whitespaces fixed |
| 10:03 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2119 -- [patch 1/4] Network rework: Rewrite client/server packet handling & packet reading by nerzhul |
| 10:04 |
Zeno` |
ok, merging now |
| 10:04 |
Zeno` |
there have been no objections have there? |
| 10:05 |
Zeno` |
pushed |
| 10:12 |
Zeno` |
what's the other PR that needs a lot of testing? |
| 10:12 |
Zeno` |
nrzkt? |
| 10:13 |
Zeno` |
oh wait... the big one breaks backward compat? |
| 10:13 |
nrzkt |
yes ? |
| 10:13 |
Zeno` |
ok, I'll leave that for now until it's been discussed more |
| 10:14 |
Zeno` |
looking at your other 2 |
| 10:14 |
nrzkt |
the other PR doesn't need many tests, i think testing it 3 or 4 days could be good |
| 10:14 |
nrzkt |
i will redo the patch 2/4 PR |
| 10:14 |
est31 |
is "the big one" the tcp move? |
| 10:15 |
nrzkt |
no |
| 10:15 |
nrzkt |
TCP move isn't finished yet |
| 10:15 |
est31 |
k |
| 10:15 |
nrzkt |
at this time it needs more things, i only break the connection model, i need to work on transmission and session rework now |
| 10:15 |
est31 |
so old client cant connect to the new server? |
| 10:16 |
est31 |
s/the/a/ |
| 10:16 |
nrzkt |
in fact protocol is purely bugued at this time |
| 10:16 |
nrzkt |
it need a break for future release |
| 10:16 |
est31 |
yea |
| 10:16 |
nrzkt |
some packets are wrong, some others aren't well formed, and i need to have a well designed API to write packets. PR 1 and PR2 have compat, but PR 3 will fix design |
| 10:17 |
est31 |
there are just some ppl that offer their servers from master. |
| 10:17 |
est31 |
like vanessae |
| 10:17 |
Zeno` |
what are some other PRs that need looking at? |
| 10:18 |
est31 |
Zeno`, scroll up :) |
| 10:18 |
nrzkt |
#2214 and #2209 |
| 10:18 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2214 -- Performance improvement -> Craftdef.cpp: Improve loop and mathematics for CraftDefinitionShaped::check by nerzhul |
| 10:18 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2209 -- Little performance improvement: use getPlayer(peer_id) instead of getPlayer(playername) by nerzhul |
| 10:18 |
nrzkt |
they are little, comparing with network :p |
| 10:18 |
Zeno` |
apart from those :P |
| 10:19 |
Zeno` |
I'm already looking at those two |
| 10:19 |
Zeno` |
est31, I can't merge 2225 |
| 10:19 |
est31 |
why |
| 10:20 |
Zeno` |
because it's not allowed to be discussed |
| 10:20 |
Zeno` |
someone else will have to do it I guess |
| 10:20 |
est31 |
I'm keeping out of your dispute |
| 10:20 |
Zeno` |
If there is an obstacle that makes my work harder (e.g. cannot discuss on IRC) then I just won't bother |
| 10:21 |
nrzkt |
ok #2273 is out. Tests before merge are require, i recommend 3 days on running servers |
| 10:21 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2273 -- [Patch 2/4] Network rework: packet writing, sending and cleanups by nerzhul |
| 10:21 |
est31 |
I'll relay everything you note to github |
| 10:22 |
Zeno` |
est31, all I am saying is that I'm not going to spend the time reviewing the PR when the author will not spend the time talking about it. If that's petty then I am petty |
| 10:22 |
Zeno` |
There are other coredevs who can look at it |
| 10:22 |
est31 |
ok |
| 10:22 |
Zeno` |
I merged one of his PRs only 2 days ago, btw |
| 10:22 |
Zeno` |
so there is no malice... I'm just being lazy |
| 10:25 |
est31 |
#2073 is ready too -- most of the comments are just about fixing something completely different |
| 10:25 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2073 -- Simplify Readme build steps by est31 |
| 10:26 |
nrzkt |
for 2073, i think we must add a reference into game to minetest_game, this permit to clone recursive |
| 10:27 |
est31 |
not neccessarily |
| 10:28 |
nrzkt |
no but this is very useful :) |
| 10:28 |
nrzkt |
#2273 need review please :) |
| 10:28 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2273 -- [Patch 2/4] Network rework: packet writing, sending and cleanups by nerzhul |
| 10:30 |
Zeno` |
yeah, that looks ok at first glance |
| 10:30 |
Zeno` |
(2073) I mean |
| 10:30 |
|
crazyR joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:36 |
JakubVanek_ |
oh PR #2261 needs to rewritten now, i'll try |
| 10:36 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2261 -- damage_per_second negative number implementation by JakubVanek |
| 10:37 |
nrzkt |
wait for #2261 |
| 10:37 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2261 -- damage_per_second negative number implementation by JakubVanek |
| 10:37 |
nrzkt |
i think i must fix it in network rewrite before |
| 10:37 |
nrzkt |
the fix needs a protocol break |
| 10:38 |
JakubVanek_ |
ok |
| 10:38 |
nrzkt |
rebase it now, but it need to be a little bit rewrited when patch 2/4 will be merged |
| 11:06 |
Zeno` |
any comments on #2217? |
| 11:06 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2217 -- Fix Exit to OS button focus in Pause Menu by ngosang |
| 11:07 |
nrzkt |
seems good |
| 11:14 |
Zeno` |
I think focused_element is a sound idea |
| 11:14 |
Zeno` |
I'm inclined to merge it |
| 11:19 |
est31 |
what does 2073 need to get merged? |
| 11:26 |
Zeno` |
est31, what is pilzadam's comment referring to? |
| 11:27 |
Zeno` |
doesn't seem related to the diff at all :/ |
| 11:28 |
|
PilzAdam joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:28 |
Zeno` |
speak of the devil |
| 11:29 |
Zeno` |
est31, lines 120- work for any distro and not just debian/ubuntu/debian-derived |
| 11:31 |
Zeno` |
lines 108, 111, and 115 should be clarified to show they're using git (the only distro specific thing is, really, lines 108/109 |
| 11:31 |
Zeno` |
lines 111 and 115* |
| 11:34 |
|
Amaz joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:34 |
est31 |
Zeno`, PilzAdams comment is about which packages to have in line 106 |
| 11:34 |
est31 |
so unrelated |
| 11:35 |
est31 |
Where is it written that the commands only work for debian/ubuntu? |
| 11:35 |
est31 |
I can clarify in line 108 that its an example for debian/ubuntu |
| 11:36 |
est31 |
lines 111 and 115 already contain a hint, but I can make it even clearer if you wish :) |
| 11:36 |
Zeno` |
yeah, maybe just clarify that. Change it to something like make sure git is installed, for example on @*$(@*$(*@($*@( you can use apt-get *$(@*#$(@ |
| 11:37 |
Zeno` |
well, I know Ubuntu is popular but 111- and 115- are fine (and distro agnostic) |
| 11:38 |
est31 |
yea gonna change 108 |
| 11:39 |
Zeno` |
e.g. maybe there needs to be an extra heading before lines 111 and 120??? |
| 11:40 |
Zeno` |
other than that the rest is good as far as I can see |
| 11:41 |
est31 |
yea good idea, just idk how to format it, there is no example of that headline level |
| 11:41 |
Zeno` |
-j2 might need explanation (e.g. $make -j2 # comment here) but that's pedantic |
| 11:42 |
Zeno` |
maybe... hmm... Downloading using git and Downloading archive? I dunno |
| 11:42 |
Zeno` |
hard |
| 11:43 |
est31 |
yea but how to make the headlines. there are two levels of headlines currently in readme: one at the start underlined with ==== and many others underlined with ----- |
| 11:43 |
est31 |
the only 3rd-level "headlines" I could find worked with identation |
| 11:43 |
Zeno` |
Maybe they shouldn't even be part of "Compiling on GNU/Linux:" |
| 11:43 |
Zeno` |
they should be getting the source |
| 11:44 |
est31 |
isnt that too complicated? |
| 11:44 |
celeron55 |
i'm adding nerzhul to the core team on github now |
| 11:44 |
JakubVanek_ |
nrzkt: would you mind if i add getS8() to NetworkPacket? if so, it's okay, I'll read u8 and cast it |
| 11:44 |
Zeno` |
Not sure... getting the source and compiling are two different things |
| 11:44 |
celeron55 |
(aka nrzkt) |
| 11:44 |
Zeno` |
celeron55, good call |
| 11:46 |
celeron55 |
without any assigned subsystem for now; you can note me if you have ideas about those |
| 11:46 |
Zeno` |
I don't have a subsystem either lol |
| 11:46 |
Zeno` |
I'm just a drifter |
| 11:46 |
est31 |
a serious drifter :) |
| 11:47 |
celeron55 |
in my opinion some of the subsystem maintainers should probably be replaced by more active people, but i'm not sure who would fit which |
| 11:47 |
nrzkt |
ofc Jakub |
| 11:47 |
celeron55 |
and... the open ones should be filled in |
| 11:47 |
celeron55 |
(http://dev.minetest.net/Organisation) |
| 11:47 |
nrzkt |
but getS8 will be removed in part 2 to use the << >> operators |
| 11:48 |
nrzkt |
i can take network part :) |
| 11:48 |
celeron55 |
that probably makes a lot of sense as you're reworking a lot of it anyway |
| 11:48 |
nrzkt |
Thanks c55 :) |
| 11:49 |
nrzkt |
i go to lunch |
| 11:50 |
Zeno` |
est31, anyway once the ... hmmm... ambiguities? that we've spoken about are incorporated I'll merge the PR |
| 11:50 |
celeron55 |
(i guess sapier won't mind as he's hasn't been that active in the past month) |
| 11:51 |
Zeno` |
est31, it's hard to tell where to stop. E.g. I don't do "in source" builds heh |
| 11:51 |
est31 |
? |
| 11:51 |
Zeno` |
I guess it's a "yep, this is the basic way to do it" |
| 11:51 |
Zeno` |
I don't do cmake . |
| 11:52 |
est31 |
but? |
| 11:52 |
Zeno` |
I prefer to keep my builds completely out of minetest so I have ~/minetest-build and do cmake ../minetest/ but it's a bit complicated |
| 11:53 |
Zeno` |
I'm just saying to demonstrate that keeping it simple is the way to go (and you're 99% of the way there) |
| 11:54 |
Zeno` |
I was just saying it as a sort of curiosity statement. I should have kept my mouth shut |
| 11:54 |
est31 |
nono curiosity is good |
| 11:54 |
est31 |
:) |
| 11:54 |
celeron55 |
(this means nrzkt can push his own changes to the networking part, but of course nrzkt has the responsibility to make sure people are genreally okay with the changes) |
| 11:55 |
celeron55 |
generally* |
| 11:59 |
Zeno` |
is #2265 ok to push? |
| 11:59 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2265 -- Increase MapBlock::actuallyUpdateDayNightDiff() performance by 2-8x by Zeno- |
| 12:00 |
celeron55 |
where did you get that 8x figure from? |
| 12:00 |
Zeno` |
callgrind |
| 12:00 |
celeron55 |
to me it looks like quite strictly a 2x improvement |
| 12:00 |
est31 |
differs wasnt initialized ? lol |
| 12:00 |
Zeno` |
I expected only 2x performance as well |
| 12:00 |
celeron55 |
(50% calls to nodemgr->get() means a 2x improvement) |
| 12:00 |
Zeno` |
but callgrind disagrees |
| 12:01 |
Zeno` |
maybe cache? |
| 12:02 |
est31 |
updated 2073 |
| 12:02 |
celeron55 |
Zeno`: have you tested whether that actually works? |
| 12:02 |
celeron55 |
because i think i see a bug |
| 12:04 |
Zeno` |
with differs? |
| 12:04 |
celeron55 |
at least one bug is immediately obvious: the light level of a node has to be interpreted as f.light_source if the node does not store a light value |
| 12:04 |
celeron55 |
your code seems to assume that if a node does not store a light value, the end result is 0, while it should f.light_source |
| 12:04 |
JakubVanek_ |
oh travis ci builds readme :) |
| 12:05 |
celeron55 |
at least that's how the old code works |
| 12:05 |
Zeno` |
which lines? |
| 12:06 |
celeron55 |
in your code MapNode::isLightDayNightEq, in the old code MapNode::getLight and the comparison done directly in MapBlock::actuallyUpdateDayNightDiff |
| 12:07 |
celeron55 |
there really should be a unit test for this as this is so prone to regressions |
| 12:08 |
celeron55 |
your optimization really makes the code less maintainable and readable |
| 12:09 |
Zeno` |
I can't see the error but I'll double check it |
| 12:10 |
celeron55 |
hmm wait |
| 12:10 |
|
MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:11 |
celeron55 |
hmm i think i was wrong |
| 12:11 |
celeron55 |
the reason why i was wrong is because there isn't a separate f.light_source value for LIGHTBANK_DAY and LIGHTBANK_NIGHT |
| 12:11 |
Zeno` |
right |
| 12:12 |
Zeno` |
I'll double check it anyway |
| 12:13 |
celeron55 |
yeah so it looks fine to me |
| 12:15 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:17 |
celeron55 |
let's try to make a habit of commenting "+1" to a pull request always if you check it to be pushable, even if you already say it on IRC |
| 12:18 |
Zeno` |
I think that's a good idea |
| 12:18 |
Zeno` |
I suggested it to SN a while ago |
| 12:18 |
Zeno` |
because of time differences etc |
| 12:18 |
celeron55 |
yeah i realized this when i was away for a long time and then wanted to see if there are any pull requests that i might want to merge |
| 12:18 |
celeron55 |
the problem becomes, there was no easy way of knowing whether anyone had checked it |
| 12:19 |
Zeno` |
I agree |
| 12:20 |
Zeno` |
should nrzkt be voiced? |
| 12:21 |
celeron55 |
yes but he won't be because of laziness |
| 12:21 |
Zeno` |
hah |
| 12:21 |
celeron55 |
(is nrzkt even "he"? stupid english with gender-locked pronouns) |
| 12:21 |
Zeno` |
est31, 2073 looks better |
| 12:21 |
Zeno` |
I'd rather not call him "it" |
| 12:22 |
celeron55 |
i do assume nrzkt is a human |
| 12:22 |
* Zeno` |
adds a +1 to 2073 |
| 12:23 |
Zeno` |
ok, bbl |
| 12:23 |
est31 |
celeron55, you want to review 2073 too? then we can merge it :) |
| 12:26 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:27 |
|
gregorycu_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:27 |
twoelk |
regarding discussions about core-dev activity, do take into account that the lifestyle of quite a few has changed just recently as instead of being pupils at school they are now students at university with different schedules and intensive exam times. So the dev- regulations system should offer sollutions for problems concerning seasonal-workers of which there seem to be quit a lot. |
| 12:29 |
|
gregorycu__ joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:29 |
twoelk |
maybe also a is-on-holiday should be added so that others know when not to wait for activty from someone in charge of something |
| 12:30 |
twoelk |
er, is-on-holiday-status I meant |
| 12:31 |
|
selat joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:31 |
gregorycu |
Isn't uni more flexible than school? |
| 12:31 |
gregorycu |
But I think it's a good point |
| 12:31 |
twoelk |
may be so but also much more intensiv |
| 12:32 |
gregorycu |
Fair enough, I did 2 degrees at once |
| 12:32 |
twoelk |
I used to fall of the face of earth for some weeks or even months during exam times |
| 12:32 |
gregorycu |
But I didn't attend lectures or tutorials |
| 12:32 |
gregorycu |
Only the stuff I had to attend |
| 12:33 |
gregorycu |
I'm sure others are more sudious |
| 12:33 |
gregorycu |
Like, attend spelling lectures etc. |
| 12:35 |
|
gregorycu_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:35 |
twoelk |
I attended way too much and most of it off-topic - but |
| 12:37 |
twoelk |
I think minetest should be carefull to not force activity on people on a too fixed form |
| 12:37 |
celeron55 |
est31: commented |
| 12:39 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:41 |
celeron55 |
twoelk: if people gracefully drop their tasks and not clinch to them while not doing anything to them, they can come back just as easily |
| 12:41 |
nrzkt |
i'm back |
| 12:42 |
celeron55 |
twoelk: the point is to try to allow progress to be made independently of whether a certain person is making it or not |
| 12:43 |
celeron55 |
so if you stop having time for development, state it so that others can adjust to it and aren't waiting for anything |
| 12:44 |
celeron55 |
that isn't too much to be asked |
| 12:44 |
|
gregorycu joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:44 |
est31 |
celeron55, added two packages |
| 12:45 |
twoelk |
that's why I think there should be a formal way to do this - like an extended afk/holiday note of sorts |
| 12:45 |
gregorycu |
I'm back |
| 12:46 |
gregorycu |
From my perspective, if you trust people to be contributors, there is no reason to un-trust them, even if they are UA |
| 12:47 |
celeron55 |
being a core developer serves multiple purposes, only one of which is trust |
| 12:47 |
gregorycu |
That is true, what are the other purposes? |
| 12:48 |
gregorycu |
I use the term "trust" to mean several things, trust in ability, trust in diplomacy, trust in terms of responsibility |
| 12:48 |
twoelk |
I would rather think the problem is that it is not clear wether somebody is working activily on a subject or not. And wether the afk is due to going to toilet or rather a mountain tour of several weeks |
| 12:49 |
gregorycu |
I don't understand what "subject" means |
| 12:50 |
gregorycu |
Surely a contributor, or just a member of the community has the same responsibility to be transparent about they ability to contribute to tasks worked on many people |
| 12:50 |
celeron55 |
i guess the other purposes aren't well-defined, but it kind of implies that the person will allocate time for the project quite regularly and it implies that because of that, the person can take on larger tasks in the project without too much interference from others |
| 12:50 |
twoelk |
and stating something on irc is not the same as displaying a status somewhere static that may show the status much as the master server list does for servers for example |
| 12:51 |
celeron55 |
s/and it implies that because of that/and because of that/ |
| 12:51 |
celeron55 |
(i can't english) |
| 12:52 |
gregorycu |
If I commit to working on a serious bug, I think I should be held to a similar standard to a contributor |
| 12:52 |
gregorycu |
Not just me, I mean as a member of the community |
| 12:53 |
celeron55 |
can anyone come up with a practical solution to what twoelk is talking about |
| 12:53 |
celeron55 |
it seems to be so low-bandwidth and high interval stuff that it's not worth maintaining a system for that |
| 12:53 |
gregorycu |
I think it's a wrong solution |
| 12:54 |
celeron55 |
what do you think is the problem and how would you solve it in practice? |
| 12:54 |
gregorycu |
I think things should continue to function, even if someone doesn't report themselves AFK properly |
| 12:55 |
gregorycu |
And you do that by regular updates when working on tasks, so that others can pick up the work and continue if you go away |
| 12:55 |
nrzkt |
gregorycu, i will help you to commit things and discuss with you if they are good, without problems :) |
| 12:55 |
gregorycu |
Thanks nrzkt |
| 12:55 |
gregorycu |
:) |
| 12:56 |
gregorycu |
I suppose I don't think it's a good idea to tighten the requirements to be a contributor (I hate this word) |
| 12:58 |
gregorycu |
Because I feel there are not enough and, if I can be so frank, doing so too much could be seen as a little disrespectful to the contributors and the work they put in for RL commitments |
| 12:58 |
gregorycu |
(I don't want to be a contributor, let me be clear) |
| 12:58 |
nrzkt |
if you do a pr you are a contributor :) |
| 12:59 |
gregorycu |
I don't know what the term is |
| 12:59 |
nrzkt |
core-dev |
| 12:59 |
gregorycu |
Thank you |
| 13:01 |
nrzkt |
someone have objection for #2209 and #2214 ? Kahrl ? |
| 13:01 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2209 -- Little performance improvement: use getPlayer(peer_id) instead of getPlayer(playername) by nerzhul |
| 13:01 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2214 -- Performance improvement -> Craftdef.cpp: Improve loop and mathematics for CraftDefinitionShaped::check by nerzhul |
| 13:02 |
gregorycu |
I look at the 107 pull requests, I don't think they are outstanding because the current crop of core-devs are bad, there is just not enough of em :) |
| 13:03 |
twoelk |
there are parts tha+1 |
| 13:03 |
twoelk |
I hate my cache :( |
| 13:04 |
est31 |
yea, in fact I've wanted to improve the core too, but then I saw the long list of PRs, and decided to make a test pr (you guess which) in order to find out how fast PRs get merged. |
| 13:04 |
twoelk |
I only typed +1 |
| 13:04 |
|
crazyR joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:05 |
nrzkt |
est31 i'll start a cleanup today, but i have to fix problems at work before :) |
| 13:06 |
twoelk |
gtgnow, just was affraid the new regulation suggestions might be not compatible with some life- and contribution styles |
| 13:06 |
est31 |
nrzkt, nobody requires you to review test and merge them all today. |
| 13:06 |
nrzkt |
no, but i'll talk with PR senders and ask if they are present :) |
| 13:10 |
celeron55 |
gregorycu: as i see it, being a core-dev is more of a responsibility than a privilege; i wonder if that is why i don't really see those things you mentioned as being problems |
| 13:12 |
gregorycu |
In my eyes you can't have responsibility without privilege, or the other way around |
| 13:12 |
gregorycu |
I mean to say, does it hurt the project if a person goes on an unscheduled hiatus for a little while? |
| 13:18 |
nrzkt |
Can i close #138 ? |
| 13:18 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/138 -- Health bars above player names |
| 13:18 |
celeron55 |
gregorycu: it may, but it shouldn't have to |
| 13:20 |
gregorycu |
Part of the solution is to ensure you always have a big enough bus factor |
| 13:20 |
celeron55 |
i was just going to say exactly that with a lot more complex words 8) |
| 13:21 |
celeron55 |
the fact is, we don't have a big bus factor, and it doesn't even seem to be very achievable |
| 13:22 |
celeron55 |
part of the problem regarding to that is that people are mostly driven by the technology, not the end product |
| 13:22 |
celeron55 |
it has been a common issue for years |
| 13:23 |
gregorycu |
Well, let's get this part of the discussion then |
| 13:23 |
gregorycu |
You are starting that with your 5 points for a PR |
| 13:23 |
gregorycu |
If I'm not mistaken |
| 13:24 |
celeron55 |
starting what with what? i don't get anything of what that line means |
| 13:27 |
celeron55 |
...i'm really curious of what that might have meant |
| 13:27 |
gregorycu |
Trying to find the thing in the wiki |
| 13:27 |
celeron55 |
wait do you mean the... thing |
| 13:28 |
celeron55 |
the thing that nobody ever looked at |
| 13:28 |
|
crazyR joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:28 |
celeron55 |
this? http://dev.minetest.net/Merging_core_pull_requests_to_upstream |
| 13:28 |
gregorycu |
Yeah, point number 1 |
| 13:29 |
celeron55 |
what's the issue |
| 13:29 |
celeron55 |
(note that nobody has ever followed or probably even read that page) |
| 13:30 |
est31 |
I guess if somebody actually merges PRs based on this, or employ this, others will follow |
| 13:31 |
gregorycu |
I thought the page was a new thing |
| 13:31 |
gregorycu |
I thought you were addressing: "part of the problem regarding to that is that people are mostly driven by the technology, not the end product" |
| 13:32 |
celeron55 |
it looks like i made that page in June last year, so yeah it's relatively new |
| 13:36 |
celeron55 |
i probably made that page in response to some kind of complaint by someone about PRs being hard to review and tried to come up with at least something that people can refer to |
| 13:36 |
celeron55 |
i still don't understand whether gregorycu thinks this is a problem or a solution, lol |
| 13:36 |
gregorycu |
:) |
| 13:37 |
gregorycu |
I think the bus factor issue needs a solution |
| 13:37 |
celeron55 |
it certainly hasn't solved nor caused any problems so that's a starting point for this discussion |
| 13:37 |
gregorycu |
I'm happy with the core-devs we have, I don't think they need to be filtered |
| 13:37 |
gregorycu |
This is of course, an outsiders perspective, as I'm not a core-dev |
| 13:38 |
gregorycu |
An example is what held up the release |
| 13:39 |
gregorycu |
There was nothing on github listed as a blocker |
| 13:39 |
gregorycu |
I'm sure there were some core-devs looking into whatever problem it was |
| 13:39 |
gregorycu |
But I would have liked to take a casual look, see what has been tried, maybe try something myself |
| 13:40 |
gregorycu |
I guess I would have had to come in here, and fluked catching one of the people working on it |
| 13:40 |
celeron55 |
i too am very unaware of what's going on with that |
| 13:40 |
gregorycu |
Did some of them get hit by a bus? I don't know. No visibility. |
| 13:41 |
gregorycu |
I honestly don't care about them, or their personal lives, only the issue and how they are progressing if they are making progress |
| 13:41 |
celeron55 |
i assume a few people were looking into it and then when the week started had to pause it, and didn't really document it anywhere but this channel |
| 13:42 |
celeron55 |
i guess they were expecting it to be a smaller problem and didn't plan that it would be come a multi-week bughunt |
| 13:42 |
celeron55 |
become* |
| 13:43 |
gregorycu |
A website with peoples holidays doesn't help here |
| 13:43 |
gregorycu |
Anyway, I'm ranting a bit |
| 13:44 |
celeron55 |
this is not a very common occurrence so i'm just hoping it will sort itself out |
| 13:45 |
celeron55 |
(by moving the feature freeze out of the way of other development) |
| 13:46 |
celeron55 |
but really, the issue here was that when some people don't have time to work on things, they were able to freeze almost the whole project by thinking that nobody else would be doing anything at any faster pace than them |
| 13:46 |
celeron55 |
which is ideally really just a small quirk in the process |
| 13:47 |
gregorycu |
MT doesn't always have priority in peoples lives, the process has to make it so when it is a priority they do the boring "paperwork" so that other people can carry on |
| 13:47 |
gregorycu |
Paperwork = gihub comments, forum discussions |
| 13:48 |
celeron55 |
i have tried to make it clear that people should be transparent in what they do, but i've kind of failed |
| 13:48 |
celeron55 |
maybe the things that have to be done should be more strictly defined |
| 13:48 |
celeron55 |
not a fan of that, but if it works, then it works |
| 13:49 |
gregorycu |
They have degrees in Project Management |
| 13:49 |
gregorycu |
Because it's hard to get right I suppose |
| 13:50 |
gregorycu |
Anyway, I have a small problem with the PR churn rate, 107 pull requests is a lot. I'm attributing it to the "long" feature freeze |
| 13:56 |
celeron55 |
the main issue with PRs still is that judging their quality is relatively easy, but judging their content is difficult |
| 13:58 |
est31 |
yea |
| 13:59 |
est31 |
but if people explained how to test it, then reviewers would follow their thought processes which makes it more likely both miss a bug |
| 13:59 |
celeron55 |
i mean, not technical content; it's still in the easy part |
| 14:00 |
celeron55 |
purely technical PRs are easy |
| 14:01 |
gregorycu |
I'm just waiting until microsoft fucks up minecraft, then I feel we'll have an onslaught of PRs, mods and new players |
| 14:01 |
celeron55 |
actually, now that i look at the PR listing this in mind, almost all of them are purely technical |
| 14:02 |
celeron55 |
yeah this project will be strongly supported by microsoft in the future |
| 14:02 |
gregorycu |
Right, you are concerned about PRs where you are not sure they meet point 1 |
| 14:03 |
celeron55 |
historically point 1 has been a huge problem, but it's simply not the problem right now |
| 14:03 |
celeron55 |
is there a problem to begin with? lol |
| 14:04 |
gregorycu |
There are pull requests from 2013 |
| 14:05 |
gregorycu |
And 107 PRs in total |
| 14:06 |
celeron55 |
it's not that bad; there are 1177 closed PRs since 2011 |
| 14:07 |
gregorycu |
I suppose my opinion comes from my own outstanding PRs |
| 14:08 |
celeron55 |
that's a possibility 8) |
| 14:09 |
celeron55 |
there exists no requirement for anyone to handle PRs in a justifiably fair order |
| 14:09 |
celeron55 |
it's probably better for general progress that way |
| 14:10 |
celeron55 |
gregorycu: plug them in this chat right now, maybe that'll push them forward a bit |
| 14:10 |
gregorycu |
#2173 #2224 #2225 #2241 #2242 |
| 14:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2173 -- Speed up Profiler::avg by a factor of 10 by gregorycu |
| 14:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2224 -- Fix jumping at node edge by gregorycu |
| 14:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2225 -- Fixes for minetest.get_(all_)craft_recipe(s) by gregorycu |
| 14:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2241 -- Fix for disable_jump group doesnt work on nodeboxes by gregorycu |
| 14:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2242 -- Optimise MapBlockMesh functions by gregorycu |
| 14:11 |
nrzkt |
i'll look at this later greg |
| 14:12 |
gregorycu |
I should really try to exploit your green eagerness :) |
| 14:12 |
nrzkt |
sfan5 are you there ? |
| 14:12 |
est31 |
celeron55, like the updates for 2073 ? |
| 14:14 |
celeron55 |
est31: it's still fine |
| 14:14 |
gregorycu |
I gotta run, it's late, thanks for the chat |
| 14:14 |
est31 |
merge, then? |
| 14:14 |
gregorycu |
est31: Let's discuss the API improvements again in the near future |
| 14:15 |
est31 |
gregorycu, ok |
| 14:15 |
nrzkt |
sfan5, can you tell me if #1020 is valid ? |
| 14:15 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1020 -- Whole menu messes up when using Local Install from Mods menu and pressing Cancel |
| 14:16 |
celeron55 |
est31: i'll merge it (with a different commit message; it's as much about recommending git as simplifying) |
| 14:23 |
celeron55 |
(done) |
| 14:23 |
est31 |
thanks :) |
| 14:24 |
celeron55 |
i think what i'll say to core devs from now on is "we have closed on average 1 PR per day through our history and we are doing fine; how can you imagine doing worse than that?" |
| 14:25 |
celeron55 |
this is the answer to all complaints |
| 14:30 |
celeron55 |
i'm a bit unsure about these new core developer rules based on gregorycu's point about it being mostly about trust |
| 14:33 |
celeron55 |
i'm going to change these to be more sloppy about activity and be worded a bit differently |
| 14:35 |
nrzkt |
what do you think about #1521 ? I test a personnal rebase and it works very well |
| 14:35 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1521 -- Water surface shader. by RealBadAngel |
| 14:37 |
nrzkt |
celeron55 can i close #1228, i override your PR :) |
| 14:37 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1228 -- Move packet creation to a central location (work in progress) by celeron55 |
| 14:38 |
celeron55 |
feel free to |
| 14:39 |
nrzkt |
thanks |
| 14:42 |
celeron55 |
i changed the rules like this: https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=169838#p169838 |
| 14:43 |
|
alexxss joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:45 |
nrzkt |
very good ! |
| 14:49 |
|
Zeno` joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:49 |
|
CraigyDavi joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:50 |
Zeno` |
geez nrzkt :P Calm down |
| 14:50 |
nrzkt |
i only answer to old issues ^^ |
| 14:50 |
Zeno` |
main() (and the_game()) were both refactored before 0.4.11 :P |
| 14:50 |
nrzkt |
main.cpp is big now too :( |
| 14:51 |
Zeno` |
the actual file is, yes |
| 14:51 |
nrzkt |
and it's spaggethis, mamma mia |
| 14:51 |
Zeno` |
but the function which used to be 2000 lines long is now... I dunno |
| 14:51 |
nrzkt |
okay ! |
| 14:52 |
Zeno` |
it still needs work though. To get it merged I had to make it "kind of close" to how it used to be |
| 14:52 |
nrzkt |
no problem |
| 14:53 |
Zeno` |
lol, it's fine |
| 14:53 |
Zeno` |
I don't mind old stuff being opened but... |
| 14:53 |
nrzkt |
many issues seems to be pertinent, i don't know about most of the issues, but they can be possible :s |
| 14:53 |
PilzAdam |
nrzkt, we don't assign people to PRs |
| 14:53 |
PilzAdam |
(or issues) |
| 14:54 |
PilzAdam |
it looks as if you are saying "nobody is allowed to fix this bug except me" |
| 14:54 |
nrzkt |
oh ? i saw some issues assigned to kahrl |
| 14:55 |
nrzkt |
okay, i would tell: i'll fix it, don't duplicates work , but if nobody wants, that's ok |
| 14:58 |
celeron55 |
the issue assignments are mostly pointing to people who are known to know the subject well to fix it |
| 14:58 |
nrzkt |
i see |
| 14:58 |
nrzkt |
Zeno`, PilzAdam, agree with #2209 (rebased freshly because network part 1 broke it) |
| 14:58 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2209 -- Little performance improvement: use getPlayer(peer_id) instead of getPlayer(playername) by nerzhul |
| 14:59 |
Zeno` |
I can't merge atm |
| 14:59 |
Zeno` |
in... errr, don't shoot me... Windows |
| 14:59 |
nrzkt |
i can do it, if you agree |
| 15:00 |
Zeno` |
here is what main.cpp looked like around the time 957 was opened: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/996ea60642c5d78fc915573af0641d78bc7e2d49/src/main.cpp |
| 15:00 |
Zeno` |
2209 is fine |
| 15:00 |
nrzkt |
ouch |
| 15:01 |
nrzkt |
i understand now :p |
| 15:02 |
Zeno` |
but, yeah, it still needs more work |
| 15:03 |
Zeno` |
merge 2209 I think |
| 15:03 |
nrzkt |
i do it |
| 15:03 |
Zeno` |
maybe remove the word ugly :P |
| 15:04 |
nrzkt |
already done ^^ |
| 15:04 |
Zeno` |
xD |
| 15:04 |
nrzkt |
Application : Replace getPlayer(playername) by getPlayer(peer_id) in some possible cases. ok @Zeno- |
| 15:04 |
sfan5 |
nrzkt: I'm here |
| 15:04 |
sfan5 |
(now) |
| 15:04 |
nrzkt |
sfan5, can you tell me if #1020 is valid ? |
| 15:04 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1020 -- Whole menu messes up when using Local Install from Mods menu and pressing Cancel |
| 15:05 |
sfan5 |
nrzkt: i dunno, it was a bug that happened before we released 0.4.8; the local install option is currently disabled anyway so it's not an issue right now |
| 15:06 |
nrzkt |
can i close it ? |
| 15:07 |
sfan5 |
i think it would still happen if the "local install" option was enabled |
| 15:07 |
sfan5 |
let me test |
| 15:09 |
sfan5 |
yup |
| 15:09 |
sfan5 |
still happens |
| 15:11 |
nrzkt |
hmmm, then the issue is valid |
| 15:17 |
Zeno` |
can someone merge #2265 please? c55 has agreed |
| 15:17 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2265 -- Increase MapBlock::actuallyUpdateDayNightDiff() performance by 2-8x by Zeno- |
| 15:17 |
nrzkt |
i look at this |
| 15:18 |
Zeno` |
thanks. I'd do it myself but I don't want to reboot this close to going to sleep ;) |
| 15:22 |
|
hmmmm joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:23 |
nrzkt |
done |
| 15:24 |
est31 |
comments on #2275? |
| 15:24 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2275 -- lua_api.txt should have a since field for every function |
| 15:24 |
nrzkt |
there isn't any documentation on wiki ? |
| 15:25 |
est31 |
http://dev.minetest.net/minetest.forceload_block |
| 15:25 |
est31 |
quite alot |
| 15:25 |
nrzkt |
it miss the supported version on each call |
| 15:25 |
est31 |
then add it to the issue description :) |
| 15:26 |
est31 |
as comment* |
| 15:27 |
est31 |
what do you mean with call? |
| 15:29 |
nrzkt |
api call |
| 15:29 |
est31 |
and what do you mean with version steps? |
| 15:30 |
Zeno` |
#2261 will need to be squashed I think (if it's to be merged) |
| 15:30 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2261 -- damage_per_second negative number implementation by JakubVanek |
| 15:30 |
nrzkt |
cannot be merged, protocol break |
| 15:31 |
|
SopaXT joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:31 |
Zeno` |
maybe that should be a github label :P |
| 15:31 |
nrzkt |
i tagged protocol bump, is this right ? |
| 15:33 |
Zeno` |
seems there is no other appropriate label/tag |
| 15:34 |
nrzkt |
this commit must wait network rework part 2 and could be merged with network rework part 3, which introduce a massive protocol break |
| 15:34 |
nrzkt |
(4-5 incompatible packets) |
| 15:35 |
est31 |
protocol break == protocol version increment?? |
| 15:36 |
nrzkt |
indeed |
| 15:36 |
nrzkt |
the actual protocol has some bugs and need some design rework |
| 15:37 |
Brains |
nrzkt: I think I'm confused about how the XDG issues (#395 & #864) worked out... The issues were closed with no PRs but you said something about approving the change in #395. |
| 15:37 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/864 -- XDG Base Directory Specs |
| 15:37 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/395 -- Config file on XDG dir on Linux |
| 15:37 |
Zeno` |
it's not a very good label IMO. Protocol bump does not necessarily mean backward compatibility will break |
| 15:37 |
nrzkt |
Brains duplicates |
| 15:38 |
nrzkt |
i keep 864 because it's more recent and the discussion have more elements |
| 15:38 |
nrzkt |
has* |
| 15:38 |
Zeno` |
I think it needs to be made clear "older clients will not work" |
| 15:38 |
nrzkt |
"protocol break" tag ? |
| 15:38 |
celeron55 |
that pull request doesn't need a brotocol break, it's just what will probably happen soon enough for it to be simply included in it |
| 15:38 |
hmmmm |
before reverse compatibility is broken, we need to see this commit to assess whether it's worth it |
| 15:38 |
Brains |
nrzkt: I see my mistake, I thought 864 was closed. Nevermind me... Sorry. |
| 15:39 |
nrzkt |
Brains: no problem |
| 15:39 |
hmmmm |
and I completely veto using TCP |
| 15:39 |
nrzkt |
then, rewrite all network. |
| 15:40 |
celeron55 |
i suggest nobody vetoes TCP until they have actually tested how well it works |
| 15:40 |
celeron55 |
at least that is what i will personally do |
| 15:40 |
nrzkt |
we can use both TCP and UDP if this could satisfy any. TCP for security and UDP for packet we don't care. |
| 15:40 |
nrzkt |
but stop invent TCP over UDP. |
| 15:40 |
Zeno` |
it needs to be labeled that it will break older clients though... surely |
| 15:40 |
hmmmm |
I used to be in the camp that tcp could be mixed in with the protocol into parts latency-agnostic bits but I changed my stance since I feel that rUDP could be made better by simply improving what is already there |
| 15:40 |
est31 |
security is uncoupled from tcp vs udp |
| 15:40 |
hmmmm |
forget about that |
| 15:40 |
|
Guest89616 joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:40 |
hmmmm |
there's one major difference here: |
| 15:41 |
est31 |
you can also encrypt udp |
| 15:41 |
celeron55 |
Zeno`: it can't be done in the way the pull request wants to; if it would be included before the break, then it would have to be modified to add the field in a backwards-compatible manner |
| 15:41 |
hmmmm |
tcp blocks all packets from being handled until it receives every single one needed to be in order |
| 15:41 |
nrzkt |
i don't talk about security of the transmission but reliability |
| 15:41 |
celeron55 |
Zeno`: i think that should be just commented to it, i'll go and do that |
| 15:41 |
est31 |
ah |
| 15:41 |
Zeno` |
yeah, ok a comment would be good enough |
| 15:41 |
nrzkt |
hmmmm: only media information will come with multiple packets. Other uses only one packet |
| 15:41 |
Zeno` |
just *something* so it's obvious |
| 15:42 |
hmmmm |
nrzkt: but media is downloaded using cURL. that already uses TCP |
| 15:42 |
hmmmm |
what's the point then?? |
| 15:42 |
nrzkt |
TCP is better for handling sessions and reliability of the transmission |
| 15:42 |
nrzkt |
85% of MT packets are reliable. |
| 15:44 |
nrzkt |
MT is not a FPS, it's like a RPG. World of Warcraft uses TCP by default and doesn't have any problem with latency. |
| 15:44 |
celeron55 |
the HTTP media server is a hack that shouldn't be needed at all |
| 15:44 |
celeron55 |
ideally it should be removed when it isn't needed anymore |
| 15:44 |
hmmmm |
as to your first point. that's true, but so what? how is that any better at all than minetest's reliable udp implementation |
| 15:45 |
hmmmm |
second, I'm sure they are mostly reliable. but they can still be latency-critical |
| 15:45 |
nrzkt |
MT reliable UDP implementation is like spaghettis |
| 15:45 |
nrzkt |
many threads, queues, locks. |
| 15:45 |
hmmmm |
then fix the implementation instead of introducing an incredible amount of latency |
| 15:45 |
nrzkt |
no latency with TCP. Please stop using a satellite for playing |
| 15:45 |
hmmmm |
latency is a huge concern |
| 15:46 |
hmmmm |
yes, there IS latency with TCP that's not necessary. |
| 15:46 |
hmmmm |
it's real, it exists, and it could be potentially horrible. |
| 15:46 |
hmmmm |
I vote unconditionally against TCP. |
| 15:46 |
nrzkt |
as i said, 85% from MT are reliable. Then they are using a TCP like implementation |
| 15:46 |
hmmmm |
holy shit I said already |
| 15:46 |
hmmmm |
minetest's reliable UDP does not have all the same characteristics as TCP does |
| 15:47 |
hmmmm |
I'm not going to repeat myself any more |
| 15:47 |
Vexyl |
I thought mixing TCP and UDP was generally a horrible idea. |
| 15:47 |
celeron55 |
yeah it's probably worse in pretty much all aspects |
| 15:47 |
nrzkt |
now, wait for my implementation, test it and say what you want. |
| 15:47 |
celeron55 |
minetest's reliable UDP implementation that is |
| 15:47 |
hmmmm |
if it's so horrible, I'd rather learn what makes it horrible, and fix that |
| 15:47 |
hmmmm |
as of right now it has a clear advantage over TCP in terms of latency |
| 15:47 |
celeron55 |
the only way to make it actually work is to switch to enet |
| 15:47 |
hmmmm |
and enet is udp based |
| 15:47 |
hmmmm |
so what's your point |
| 15:48 |
celeron55 |
yes; it's the competent rudp implementation if such is wanted |
| 15:48 |
celeron55 |
we shouldn't make it ourselves |
| 15:48 |
nrzkt |
ofc. Let the OS properly do what he knows doing. |
| 15:48 |
kilbith |
sapier told me in PM that enet is the 2nd faster solution behind a custom TCP, for info |
| 15:49 |
celeron55 |
nrzkt: for your own sanity, you should probably just ignore hmmmm though |
| 15:49 |
hmmmm |
I remember sapier did have a patch in his own branch that adds enet support |
| 15:49 |
celeron55 |
otherwise you'll get brain cancer or something if you disagree with him |
| 15:49 |
hmmmm |
but this is all ridiculous |
| 15:49 |
hmmmm |
instead of just saying "nope. we can't do it" let's figure out how they do it and see if we can't do the same |
| 15:49 |
nrzkt |
in fact sapier implementation uses the current design, and we need to rework all the stack |
| 15:49 |
celeron55 |
sapier also has a tcp+udp implementation which is close to what nrzkt is going to do |
| 15:49 |
celeron55 |
and he didn't report any considerable issues with it |
| 15:50 |
Brains |
Make the appropriate interface, swap out netcode underneath it, and let history decide. *shrug* |
| 15:50 |
est31 |
swappable ... neat |
| 15:50 |
celeron55 |
that interface already exists, sapier made it a year ago for the exact purpose of figuring out what we should actually used underneath it |
| 15:51 |
celeron55 |
actually use* |
| 15:51 |
nrzkt |
the protocol change isn't today, it will be in the PR in 2 or 3 weeks, i need to properly change clientiface.cpp and use the new native connection |
| 15:51 |
JakubVanek_ |
oh i feel bit stupid with my coding style fixes |
| 15:51 |
celeron55 |
and he also reworked the udp-only implementation to work with that interface, which is frankly an overcomplicated mess but it's there anyway currently |
| 15:51 |
hmmmm |
if the underlying problem with reliable UDP is something in the protocol that fixing would ruin backwards compatibility, then I can understand the case for using enet |
| 15:51 |
nrzkt |
JakubVanek_: don't forget to rebase your commits |
| 15:52 |
Brains |
celeron55: You wouldn't happen to have a link to some docs or anything on that handy? Now I'm curious. |
| 15:52 |
hmmmm |
but has anybody actually done this research? |
| 15:52 |
celeron55 |
hmmmm: well i personally designed the protocol years ago and i can confirm it's very crappy |
| 15:52 |
hmmmm |
because it sounds to me like a lot of changes in minetest are being done for the sake of change based off of somebody's prejudices, not necessarily making it better |
| 15:52 |
nrzkt |
in fact you can trash backward compat because there are many issues on the protocol which need a break |
| 15:53 |
hmmmm |
such as..... |
| 15:53 |
hmmmm |
come on, I can't do this right now, I have work... |
| 15:53 |
nrzkt |
using wrong types into packets |
| 15:53 |
nrzkt |
go work instead of trolling without testing... |
| 15:53 |
celeron55 |
hmmmm: go away then, you're not making any progress happen with this discussion |
| 15:54 |
nrzkt |
or using two differents string serializations (one isn't a huge cost) |
| 15:54 |
nrzkt |
or pass some strings as simple char[X] without serialize |
| 15:55 |
hmmmm |
an opinion you disagree with isn't trolling |
| 15:55 |
hmmmm |
I don't quite understand how what I'm saying is stupid |
| 15:55 |
celeron55 |
trolling is a completely incorrect term for that but the point is clear |
| 15:55 |
|
luizrpgluiz joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:55 |
nrzkt |
in fact this isn't an opinion problem, i read the networking code. Did you ? |
| 15:55 |
hmmmm |
all I'm suggesting is that actual research is done before knee-jerk large codebase changes are made |
| 15:56 |
nrzkt |
it's a codebase change ! network is important |
| 15:56 |
hmmmm |
and right now it seems like it hasn't |
| 15:56 |
luizrpgluiz |
hi |
| 15:56 |
nrzkt |
hmmmm: please release 0.4.12 |
| 15:56 |
celeron55 |
hmmmm: nobody is going to listen to you because you haven't researched it either; hoever we will gladly listen to eg. sapier if he comes aroun |
| 15:56 |
hmmmm |
luzrpgluiz: do you actually say anything other than 'hi'? |
| 15:56 |
celeron55 |
around* |
| 15:56 |
celeron55 |
however* |
| 15:56 |
|
SopaXorzTaker joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:56 |
hmmmm |
celeron, that is so nonsensical |
| 15:57 |
hmmmm |
so unless I take on the full burden of doing all the work that should've been done beforehand, we should allow changes to get added willy nilly |
| 15:57 |
hmmmm |
okay I have an idea. |
| 15:57 |
hmmmm |
we should blank out all of the source files in the entire project. |
| 15:57 |
celeron55 |
this is actually beyond ridiculous, lol |
| 15:57 |
hmmmm |
this will improve code organization and optimize execution time. |
| 15:58 |
Wayward_One |
Zeno`, yes, i've tested using /status as well |
| 15:58 |
celeron55 |
hmmmm: if nrzkt is ready to rework the entire thing, he's not taking anything away from you |
| 15:58 |
luizrpgluiz |
all, which will have the new version of minetest? there will be changes in the engine? |
| 15:58 |
celeron55 |
and he does have experience on the subject |
| 15:59 |
celeron55 |
and the end result will be reviewed before it'll touch upstream |
| 15:59 |
hmmmm |
celeron55: and I'm not saying that I am going to stop him |
| 15:59 |
celeron55 |
there's nothing to worry about |
| 15:59 |
hmmmm |
yes there is |
| 15:59 |
hmmmm |
it'll get shoved into upstream without so much as a second thought |
| 15:59 |
hmmmm |
"tested it on my server for 2 weeks, can't see any problems! let's add it!" |
| 15:59 |
nrzkt |
it's why my commits are separated PR's |
| 15:59 |
nrzkt |
in fact network is simple to test |
| 16:00 |
nrzkt |
send one packet of each type, if each part handle it properly it works. |
| 16:00 |
|
Guest89616 joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:01 |
luizrpgluiz |
I wanted to be part of the beta test to test new versions of the game before officially launch |
| 16:01 |
celeron55 |
hmmmm: what kind of data do you think should be gotten before deciding to do it, then? |
| 16:02 |
nrzkt |
and also, for compat, i tested all the cases: legacy client with current server, legacy server with current client and current with current. Then i'll send the PR, wait the review of unpartial persons |
| 16:04 |
|
roniz joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:05 |
nrzkt |
it seems that #2164 is ready, everybody agrees ? |
| 16:05 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2164 -- Fix FTBFS on GNU/Hurd platform by apoleon |
| 16:05 |
est31 |
~protect |
| 16:05 |
|
SopaXorzTaker joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:06 |
est31 |
aw sorry |
| 16:06 |
est31 |
wrong # channel :( |
| 16:06 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:09 |
Zeno` |
hang on. So legacy clients will still be able to connect to servers with the new "protocol"? |
| 16:09 |
Zeno` |
and vice versa? |
| 16:09 |
nrzkt |
no |
| 16:09 |
nrzkt |
it's impossible |
| 16:09 |
celeron55 |
nrzkt is working on many layers, one at a time |
| 16:10 |
|
T4im joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:10 |
Zeno` |
I know... just confused about the comment: |
| 16:10 |
nrzkt |
but Patch 2/4 don't |
| 16:10 |
Zeno` |
nrzkt> and also, for compat, i tested all the cases: legacy client with current server, legacy server with current client and current with current. Then i'll send the PR, wait the review of unpartial persons |
| 16:10 |
nrzkt |
i talk about Patch 1/4 and 2/4 |
| 16:10 |
nrzkt |
no compat break here |
| 16:10 |
Zeno` |
yep |
| 16:11 |
celeron55 |
nrzkt: can you explain here when and for what purpose on what layer you plan on breaking compatibility on? |
| 16:11 |
celeron55 |
i mean, this should be made perfectly clear to everyone |
| 16:11 |
celeron55 |
so that people can comment properly to begin with |
| 16:12 |
Brains |
Could it be pasted to github/forum/wiki/something so that those of us not present can see as well? |
| 16:12 |
nrzkt |
okay, |
| 16:12 |
nrzkt |
the first part of the breakage was here |
| 16:12 |
nrzkt |
https://github.com/nerzhul/minetest/commit/ad85f1c9ecc45cb39a7eada6c2fb5b179131648f |
| 16:13 |
nrzkt |
This cleanup the API, removing static char copy into packets. And _INIT packet is modified. |
| 16:13 |
nrzkt |
This also remove some old interfaces to use NetworkPacket in a lower layer (connection.cpp) |
| 16:14 |
nrzkt |
This break the AccessDenied packet, using an ID instead of a string, this permit to use intl on client for server auth messages, but i kept LUA API compat with a special type SERVER_ACCESSDENIED_CUSTOM_STRING |
| 16:15 |
nrzkt |
it also fix DeleteParticleSpawner, the server currently send a U16 whereas it's a U32... |
| 16:16 |
nrzkt |
this is the first part of this PR, but i think i'll add a breakage on string serialization in the packet |
| 16:16 |
nrzkt |
at this time, we have : *pkt << std::string and pkt->putLongString |
| 16:17 |
nrzkt |
the only difference between those two types of string is the length. First: u16, second u32 |
| 16:17 |
nrzkt |
using a u32 for all strings permit to use *pkt << std::string and remove putLongString |
| 16:18 |
nrzkt |
then it's all for the third PR. But as JakubVanek_ point, the _damage packet is also wrong and need to be fixed fix a larger modification |
| 16:18 |
nrzkt |
fixing* |
| 16:18 |
hmmmm |
celeron55, I reckon it'd be useful to know... 1). min/median/max and average RTT, packet overhead, throughput for the current implementation, TCP implementation, and an enet implementation |
| 16:19 |
nrzkt |
hmmmm: i agree |
| 16:19 |
hmmmm |
2). I'd like to directly compare enet's protocol vs. minetest's reliable udp protocol and find what differences between the two make the most difference in metrics and why |
| 16:19 |
nrzkt |
RTT is lost with pure TCP because we don't know each packet, we know a transaction |
| 16:20 |
hmmmm |
3). I'd like to know if the increased latency in TCP negatively affects actual game experience |
| 16:20 |
nrzkt |
and MT doesn't need a 1Gbps bandwidth with 0.0001ms of latency |
| 16:21 |
nrzkt |
i agree with the third point too |
| 16:21 |
nrzkt |
but TCP will not add 10sec of latency |
| 16:21 |
hmmmm |
you don't need to add 10 seconds of latency to negatievly impact the end user's experience |
| 16:22 |
hmmmm |
negatively |
| 16:22 |
nrzkt |
i know :) |
| 16:22 |
hmmmm |
it could be as low as a half second even |
| 16:22 |
nrzkt |
tcp doesn't take 0.5sec latency |
| 16:22 |
hmmmm |
and half second latencies with TCP are not uncommon, because a packet got corrupted in transmission and so ALL network stops during that time until an unbroken packet is actually received |
| 16:23 |
hmmmm |
there is absolutely no functional need for ordering with minetest's protocol |
| 16:24 |
celeron55 |
there are two potential places for breaking network compatibility: 1) at the packet level, i.e. making L6 packets sane by not using weird formats and versioning conventions for things all over thte place, 2) at the low level; this is where the rUDP/TCP/enet talk happens |
| 16:24 |
hmmmm |
sapier added enet without breaking the current implementation in his branch |
| 16:25 |
celeron55 |
(2) doesn't necessarily have to break anything; different protocols can exist there |
| 16:25 |
hmmmm |
of course |
| 16:26 |
hmmmm |
for what it's worth, I have no issues with removing backwards compatibility seeing as how we're coming up against a major release next |
| 16:26 |
fireglow |
I would also be great if minetestserver could use more than one listener |
| 16:26 |
celeron55 |
but (1) is quite fundamental to the design of the program; making it sane will help avoiding future compatibility issues and help developers not pulling their hair out on updates that could be trivial |
| 16:27 |
celeron55 |
nrzkt: is this in line with what you have planned? |
| 16:31 |
celeron55 |
if this isn't, then i too might disagree with the plans |
| 16:32 |
nrzkt |
in fact hmmmm the problem is not the protocol itself, it's all the implementation |
| 16:32 |
nrzkt |
its enet implementation integrates properly with current connection.cpp |
| 16:32 |
hmmmm |
which layer of the protocol are we talking about |
| 16:32 |
nrzkt |
4->6 |
| 16:32 |
hmmmm |
fireglow, binding to multiple ports you mean? |
| 16:32 |
|
DFeniks joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:33 |
hmmmm |
sounds like a feature request, you can add that as an issue on the github page |
| 16:34 |
celeron55 |
really what makes most sense to me is to first go after all the weird L6 formats and make the thing allow robustly adding more features, and then go after L4, attempting to finally choose whether the existing rudp, enet or tcp or tcp+udp works best |
| 16:34 |
nrzkt |
for the (1), i must say: wait. The layer rework isn't done, i have broke current working connection between client and server to rework on socket and client handling. Packet reading will be ready soon |
| 16:34 |
hmmmm |
I think you guys (actually, celeron mostly) are unreasonably angry with my request that the utility and impact of changes to code be researched first before actually committing it |
| 16:35 |
celeron55 |
you started unreasonably angry too so it's now a tie |
| 16:35 |
hmmmm |
I don't go around making major changes to core data structures without hard data to back it up, and before making every attempt possible to fix the current implementation |
| 16:35 |
nrzkt |
for my PR, patch 1,2,3 doesn't break the layer 4->6. wait the patch 4 before decide something. |
| 16:36 |
nrzkt |
the current implementation is complete but hard. The TCP implementation i'll write will be very very simple, with a SessionManager to handle clients and will be very pretty and little |
| 16:37 |
nrzkt |
in fact i tried to add TCP wrapper into current implementation but it was very very hard to add and a complete rework make it simpler, because current implementation is done for UDP, not for TCP and many things will slow TCP connection without interest |
| 16:38 |
celeron55 |
you'll want to make it something that is able to work with enet too; otherwise we can't compare anything properly |
| 16:38 |
nrzkt |
i think it's possible. But i need to finish SessionManager before |
| 16:39 |
celeron55 |
that might get weird though |
| 16:40 |
nrzkt |
and i think we need to compare current implementation between current implementation with enet (like sapier does) with the rewritten implementation with pure TCP |
| 16:40 |
celeron55 |
enet probably is something like what the current implementation would be if it was improved infinitely |
| 16:41 |
celeron55 |
performance-wise |
| 16:41 |
nrzkt |
ofc |
| 16:42 |
nrzkt |
i need to go back home, see you |
| 16:43 |
nrzkt |
#1188 need a review |
| 16:43 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1188 -- getTime refactoring by Selat |
| 16:48 |
celeron55 |
Brains: i do not think it was documented outside of the code itself |
| 16:51 |
celeron55 |
Brains: https://github.com/sapier/minetest/commit/bbc8195950b114c77794d801c74a6887c1c44d95 |
| 16:52 |
celeron55 |
https://github.com/sapier/minetest/commits/network_addon_enet_6 https://github.com/sapier/minetest/commits/network_addon_tcp_2 |
| 16:52 |
celeron55 |
these give some idea on it |
| 16:54 |
celeron55 |
frankly it's not really a plugin layer of any kind, but it's possible to add other protocols to it |
| 16:54 |
celeron55 |
unlike previously |
| 16:56 |
celeron55 |
that stuff isn't very pretty though because it closely follows the original MT-rUDP's interfafce |
| 16:56 |
celeron55 |
interface* |
| 17:00 |
JakubVanek_ |
these two PR are duplicates: #2183 #2071, i would prefer the ngosang's #2183 rather than mine. what do you think? |
| 17:00 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2183 -- Fix Download complete dialog in the mods store by ngosang |
| 17:00 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2071 -- Remove last installed mods name concatenation by JakubVanek |
| 17:00 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2183 -- Fix Download complete dialog in the mods store by ngosang |
| 17:07 |
|
ImQ009 joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:10 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:12 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:23 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:24 |
|
rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:26 |
|
Selah joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:27 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:29 |
|
Amaz joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:36 |
|
DFeniks joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:40 |
|
Robert_Zenz joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:48 |
|
ElectronLibre joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:51 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:53 |
nrzkt |
ofc celeron, an intermediate layer is required. I'll think about it |
| 18:15 |
|
SopaXorzTaker joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:40 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:42 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:57 |
|
Player_2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:10 |
MattJ |
Couldn't figure out why the multispawn mod wasn't working for me |
| 19:10 |
MattJ |
I traced it down to fields.quit == "true" when the form fields are received from the client |
| 19:10 |
|
SudoAptGetPlay joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:10 |
MattJ |
It uses button_exit to submit the form, should quit == true? |
| 19:21 |
nrzkt |
i think about project, why not using compiled libraires instead of compiling twice and not sharing compiled code ? |
| 19:22 |
nrzkt |
it would be great to add for example a sharedlib which contains common utils |
| 19:27 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:34 |
|
est31 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:35 |
|
est31 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:43 |
|
ImQ009 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:48 |
|
Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:53 |
|
luizrpgluiz left #minetest-dev |
| 19:57 |
nrzkt |
sfan5: wget: unable to resolve host address `sfan5.pf-control.de' on travis |
| 19:57 |
nrzkt |
can you fix it ? |
| 19:57 |
nrzkt |
it break windows builds on travis |
| 19:59 |
|
leat joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:00 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:02 |
sfan5 |
nrzkt: works for me |
| 20:15 |
nrzkt |
can you relaunch https://travis-ci.org/minetest/minetest/builds/50239329 for my pr ? :) |
| 20:16 |
nrzkt |
oh, i can do it myself by signing with github |
| 20:19 |
|
ImQ009 joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:23 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:25 |
|
Amaz joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:34 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:44 |
|
crazyR joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:11 |
nrzkt |
If some developper have time, i moved ClientLauncher and InputHandlers from main.cpp to dedidated .cpp and .h, and also cleanup useless includes. PR #2277 |
| 21:11 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2277 -- Main.cpp cleanup: Move ClientLauncher and InputHandlers to dedicated files by nerzhul |
| 21:25 |
|
FR^2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:30 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:49 |
|
MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:52 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:54 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:59 |
|
JakubVanek joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:03 |
|
ElectronLibre left #minetest-dev |
| 22:06 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:23 |
* Tesseract |
throws #1606 on the table now that 0.5 is coming up. |
| 22:23 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1606 -- Add mod security by ShadowNinja |
| 22:25 |
Tesseract |
Also, #1943 is high-prio since I know of a practical (easy) remote code execution exploit related to it. |
| 22:25 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/1943 -- Improve client authentication |
| 22:27 |
est31 |
case insensitivity, whos on windows :) |
| 22:31 |
Tesseract |
est31: It makes sense for usernames. And AFAIK only one core dev uses Windows, and he's been MIA for a while. |
| 22:33 |
Calinou |
aka. BlockMen |
| 22:34 |
est31 |
I dont think the main issue that its SHA-1, the problem is this replay vuln. |
| 22:34 |
est31 |
there is no known practical 2nd preimage attack for sha-1 |
| 22:34 |
est31 |
but yes a very serious issue |
| 22:43 |
|
Vexyl joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:46 |
est31 |
guess you knew that just didnt want to mention it :) |
| 22:58 |
|
VanessaE joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:18 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:45 |
|
shadowzone joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:50 |
|
kilbith joined #minetest-dev |
