Time Nick Message 00:12 paramat will also merge #6633 00:12 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6633 -- Minetest dependencies for Linux in table by Reedych 00:18 paramat merging those 3 now then 00:31 paramat merged 00:31 paramat it would be nice to get below 120 PRs 01:10 basicer #6570 seems like a good canidate for getting back to 120 :) 01:10 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6570 -- Allow enter to select items from combobox's list. by basicer 01:17 paramat =D 10:16 davisonio Get this problem when someone joins the world on 0.5.0-dev: ServerError: AsyncErr: ServerThread::run Lua: OOM error from mod '*builtin*' in callback on_joinplayer(): not enough memory 10:17 davisonio even memory problems with builtin now :o 10:23 coyote1 $ free -h ? 10:23 coyote1 yes, it can be bug :P 10:27 sfan5 just because the OOM occurred inside builtin doesn't need to mean that builtin was the culprit 10:28 davisonio got enough free memory and some swap too 10:28 davisonio true 10:28 davisonio i might see if compiling without luajit does something 10:31 sfan5 when you have OOM issues it's usually luajit being stupid 11:13 nerzhul davisonio, Lua is limited to ~1GB per stack it can be a very bad mod (1GB lua state is crazy) 11:23 Kright Hello. I have an idea of new feature for graphics engine. In RL Earth is round, so distant objects will be slightly below horizon. To imitate this effect, one can approximate sphere with parabola. We only need to modify vertex shader. y -= square_distance_from_vertex_to_camera = dx*dx + dz*dz, where dx and dz is distance from camera to vertex in world coordinates (modified y in world coordinates too). So, vertex shader become more complex - instead of mul 11:35 sfan5 i'm not sure if that effect is so desirable 11:35 sfan5 open an issue for it so it won't be forgotten 11:37 Kright ok) 11:37 davisonio nerzhul: ok, I'll see what I can do probably luajit is better 11:46 sfan5 nerzhul: i thought it was luajit who had the 1GB / 2GB memory problem (?) 11:49 nerzhul sfan5, it's possible as it's a JIT there is a max buffer pool size yes 11:49 sfan5 i don't think it's the pool size, luajit uses 32-bit addresses with a few bits to signal something IIRC 11:50 sfan5 which naturally limits the amount of memory to 2 or 4 GB 11:50 sfan5 which is what gc64 is supposed to fix 13:18 Fixer seems like Texture Pack got changed to Texture Packs and I can't translate it for some reason 13:19 Shara If you mean the tab name, it was changed from "Texturepacks" since it's not a single word 15:19 rubenwardy I'd like to suggest switching to SemVar after 0.5.0 15:19 Krock straight to version 6.0? 15:20 rubenwardy and start releasing patch releases between full releases 15:24 Fixer Shara: it does but it was not in pot file iirc 15:25 Shara pot file? 15:25 rubenwardy I think that's the .po translation file 15:25 Fixer yeah 15:25 Krock translator's strings file, which needs manual updating 15:25 rubenwardy it needs to be generated from a script 15:25 rubenwardy ^ 15:26 Fixer yes 15:26 sfan5 would anyone mind if i go ahead and create the suggested backports branch for minetest_game? 15:26 Fixer please update it 15:26 Krock go ahead 15:26 rubenwardy sure, sfan5 15:26 Shara Well, translation from "texturepacks" and "texture packs" shouldn't be different anyway. 15:26 Shara sfan5: would love that to be done :) 15:27 sfan5 rubenwardy: btw do you support doing the same for the engine repo? 15:27 rubenwardy yes 15:27 sfan5 ok 15:27 rubenwardy later this week I can finish up my PR 15:28 rubenwardy I forgot to change lua_api.txt and readme, which is why it's WIP 15:28 rubenwardy a backport branch should be directly based on stable-0.4 15:28 sfan5 yes that's what i planned 15:28 sfan5 `backport-0.4` or `backports-0.4` ? 15:29 rubenwardy hmmm 15:29 rubenwardy former sounds better 15:30 rubenwardy really doesn't matter though 15:30 sfan5 the smallest questions are the hardest in life 15:30 rubenwardy lol true 15:30 Krock trivialities must be discussed 15:30 rubenwardy to great length 15:30 rubenwardy 120 is too little a number of PRs 15:31 rubenwardy we must discuss these things until the count is tripled 15:31 * Shara will try and find some more silly typos to correct then! 15:31 Krock Shara, best start in the lua_api, there's most of them :P 15:32 rubenwardy Shara, lua_api rewrite pls 15:33 rubenwardy just don't convert it to markdown 15:33 sfan5 H T M L 15:33 rubenwardy <.< 15:36 Shara Haha 15:42 Roger9 >.> 16:14 Shara Issue with the lua api is knowing everything well enough to know what needs changing. I've started looking at it more than once, but it usually makes me want to run away and hide. 16:14 Shara It's over 5k lines of stuff to check basically. 16:24 sfan5 Shara: https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/commits/backport-0.4 16:28 Shara thanks sfan5 :) 16:30 Shara Could we maybe get a news post or something on the forum to alert people that this exists and that they should switch to it if they want bug fixes? 16:31 rubenwardy I suggest doing that when we get some commits on it 16:31 rubenwardy if we haven't already 16:31 sfan5 uh 16:31 Shara It has them? 16:31 rubenwardy cool 16:31 rubenwardy it does 16:31 * rubenwardy should have checked 16:31 Shara :P 16:31 rubenwardy that was quick! 16:31 sfan5 i didn't take 1h just to create branch you know 16:31 rubenwardy thanks very much :D 16:32 Shara But yea, news post should be made, because people won't use it if they don't know it's an option now 16:32 sfan5 i should probably also create a backport-0.4 branch on the engine but that's much more work >.> 16:33 Shara I thought 0.4.17 wasn't going to be the bug fix release? Though in general I suppose a backport branch that gets updated with bugfixes would be better? 16:34 rubenwardy 0.4.17 is the bug fix release 16:35 sfan5 mostly bugfix* 16:35 sfan5 at least I don't see anything wrong with having minor features even in 0.4.17 16:35 Shara Some would be nice 16:36 Shara though it's mostly bugs I worry about 16:36 sfan5 also in case it isn't obvious: the backport-0.4 branches are basically 0.4.17-dev (= what is to become 0.4.17) 16:36 sfan5 ^ that should be noted in the news post 16:41 Shara Makes sense. Will you make the post? 16:42 sfan5 i'll do the backports for the engine now 16:42 sfan5 you can draft one if you want to 16:43 Shara I can't post there, so I just want to make sure someone does. 16:44 rubenwardy I can move a topic into there, or sfan5 or I can post it there 16:48 Shara I can write something if it helps, but it's really just a couple of lines :P 16:49 sfan5 would help yes 16:51 nerzhul rubenwardy, i'm fine with it but why not now ? 0.6.0 is not now :p 16:51 rubenwardy ? 16:51 nerzhul you talked about switching to semver 16:51 nerzhul (yeah i'm late) 16:52 rubenwardy well, we could just mark it as 1.0.0 or 5.0.0 16:52 rubenwardy I prefer the latter as 0.4.x should have be 4.x.0 16:53 nerzhul 1.0.0 can be nice to be proper for a new departure :p 17:00 rubenwardy is it agreed that we will start doing backporting releases after 0.5.0? 17:00 rubenwardy sfan5, nerzhul 17:00 sfan5 huh? 17:01 rubenwardy *continue doing 17:01 sfan5 i thought 0.4.17 was the only release with this speciality 17:01 rubenwardy I think it's worth doing in the future too 17:01 sfan5 that means 0.4.17 will turn unmaintained and dev will continue as uaual on 0.5.x 17:02 rubenwardy yeah, any further backports should be on 0.5.0 17:02 rubenwardy so between full feature releases we release patch versions with are the latest feature release (eg: 0.5.0) with bug fixes 17:02 sfan5 oh you mean just that we maintain the last version while the current ver is in dev? 17:03 rubenwardy yeah 17:03 sfan5 if we continue development as it was before that shouldn't be needed 17:03 nerzhul for me 0.4.17 would be released before 0.5.0 as bugfix release 17:03 sfan5 since 0.4.x was backwards compatible completely you could just run your server on git HEAD with no problems 17:03 Shara It would be nice if bug fixes are made to current stable releases in general. Not everyone wants to run dev version at all times 17:04 sfan5 this is how it should be done with 0.5.x too IMO, it wasn't really much of a problem in the past 17:04 Shara Then you get easy option to patch bugs but not to need to deal with new and untested features unless you want to 17:06 rubenwardy I think QA is something that we need to pick up the slack on, and this is a good start 17:06 rubenwardy we also need Lua unit tests 17:06 rubenwardy and I need less coursework so I can do all this 17:06 sfan5 this just creates more work for an already slowly moving development process 17:06 nerzhul rubenwardy, for good QA first we need more and more unittests 17:06 nerzhul especially in core engine 17:06 nerzhul but some are related to rendering and hardcore to code 17:07 nerzhul it's because Server and Client objects are too heavy 17:08 rubenwardy well, maybe leave this until after 0.5.0 17:09 rubenwardy (discussion of back porting) 17:10 Shara The current need for it is more than usual due to the compatibility breakage of current dev. So whether to continue it or not after 0.5 (or whatever you'll call it) can be decided again 17:14 rubenwardy it's also worth noting that basically *no one* is testing 0.5 17:14 rubenwardy because it's network incompatible 17:14 Shara Yup. 17:14 rubenwardy so it's worth doing at least one quick release after 0.5 17:15 Shara From a user perspective, there is no reason to touch it, unlike normal releases where you can still join any servers 17:55 paramat 0.4.17 seems probably a bad idea, and many people agree, see discussion in #6542 17:55 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6542 -- 0.4.17 release 17:56 paramat although it's probably ok for MTG 17:56 rubenwardy I personally think that it's a bad idea as it encourages users to stay on 0.4, and any backporting is better done for 0.5 17:56 rubenwardy however users want it 17:57 rubenwardy and 0.5 will be almost a year after 0.4.16 17:57 Shara The only reason I wanted 0.4.17 is so that bug fixes would be available. 17:58 Shara It doesn't really matter what you call things, or whether there's a big official release, so long as there's a branch that has the bug fixes for those who aren't rushing to update 18:00 paramat rubenwardy then you should go with what you know is best 18:03 paramat it's good to build up a good appetite before the feast of 0.5, it encourages people to change to 0.5 which we know will help concerning the mobile app situation, as we can then move players to the official app 18:05 paramat i support moving to 5.0.0, just not 1.0.0 as that's too much associated with 'complete' 18:06 rubenwardy I agree with that 18:06 sfan5 <paramat> 0.4.17 seems probably a bad idea 18:07 sfan5 server owners may need time to move to 0.5 and denying them bugfixes in the meantime doesn't seem useful at all 18:07 sfan5 0.4.17 will not contain major features on purpose, to get people to move to 0.5 18:11 paramat well, as discussed, 0.4.17 will encourage servers to not move to 0.5.0, and this is a rare and valuable opportunity to move players to android, which will only be effective if servers move quickly to 0.5.0 18:12 paramat encouraging servers to stay on 0.5.0 will also cause a larger split in the community, more need for 2 versions of mods etc. surprisingly many people agree with me in the thread, wasn't expecting that =) 18:13 sfan5 so you want to throw away the work that goes towards maintain a backports branch once 0.5 is released? 18:14 sfan5 since that will exist anyway server could just stay on the backport branch instead of staying on the 0.4.17 release 18:14 sfan5 the end result is basically the same 18:15 nerzhul i don't see how this can block them to move . the only problem with this if they are released too close i think 18:15 rubenwardy I'm +1 for 0.4.17 18:15 sfan5 obviously whether it's an official release affects distro maintainers, but servers are what matters for moving userbase 18:15 rubenwardy I retract my comment at 15:56 18:15 rubenwardy urgh 18:15 rubenwardy I retract my comment at 17:56 18:16 sfan5 it's not like 0.5 won't have enough features that will make servers want to move anyway (csm flavor limits!!) 18:31 paramat " you want to throw away the work that goes towards maintain a backports branch once 0.5 is released?" no 18:33 rubenwardy reopened game#853 18:33 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/853 -- Hunger 18:33 paramat ok, i have one request then, no features added for 0.4.17 however small 18:33 sfan5 too late i'm not going to rebase half of this again 18:33 paramat slippery slope 18:34 Shara Ability to cut colours out of chat should be included please. 18:34 paramat ^ except that 18:34 sfan5 read the list here https://github.com/minetest/minetest/projects and decide whether that's "too many features" 18:34 paramat =) 18:34 paramat ok 18:34 paramat coloured chat restrictions is justified 18:40 paramat wow there are far too many features added, where do i list the ones to leave out? 18:40 paramat remember we have neen consistently saying 'no features added to 0.4.17' 18:40 paramat *been 18:40 sfan5 i don't remember anyone saying that 18:40 paramat nerzhul and others 18:41 sfan5 there's barely any real "feature" in there anyway, but i'd like to know which ones you want to omit 18:41 paramat rubenwardy 18:42 paramat will do in 0.4.17 issue 18:46 paramat "Smooth lighting: Fix light leaking through edge-connected corners" should not as that is now causing severe lighting bugs 18:47 sfan5 oh didn't know 18:48 paramat honestly, all devs have been saying 'bugfixes only for 0.4.17' for months 18:48 sfan5 please repeat that another ten times instead of listing the commits to omit 18:49 paramat working on it 18:50 paramat also 'Allow zoom to actually show more data' needs a restriction which i am yet to work on 18:50 paramat https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6542#issuecomment-345540072 18:51 paramat New lighting curve (because it's not optimum yet and subtle shadows have disappeared) 18:52 sfan5 for the section that "need work", those need to be cherry-picked too because a possible later PR will be based on that code 18:52 sfan5 not doing that would make merging more difficult 18:52 sfan5 unless you mean that 0.4.17 should contains no new light curve, at all 18:55 paramat "0.4.17 should contains no new light curve, at all" correct, as current master needs fixing, i'm working on it 18:56 sfan5 those statements are contradictory 18:56 paramat where is the 'needs work' section? 18:57 sfan5 i was referring to the entries in what you linked where you said you would improve them 18:57 paramat ah ok 18:57 sfan5 either you 1) will adjust the current light curve and want that to be in 0.4.17 or 2) 0.4.17 will have the same light curve as 0.4.16 18:57 sfan5 which one is it 18:57 paramat i see 18:58 paramat same light curve as 0.4.16 18:58 sfan5 okay 18:59 paramat surely that's the same as not backporting 'New lighting curve'? 18:59 sfan5 it is 19:00 sfan5 but if you want to improve the current curve, i would need to backport the curve commit even if the current state is not satisfactory 19:00 sfan5 what about the zoom thing? "will improve" or "same as 0.4.16"? 19:01 paramat same as 0.4.16 19:01 sfan5 okay thanks 19:03 paramat in current master a client can choose zoomFOV 1 degree and load in blocks up to 4000 nodes away, not good 19:04 paramat my next PR will put some restriction on that 19:05 paramat i agree that 0.4.x will eventualy have to have all it's bugs fixed, to leave it in a good state 19:24 sfan5 paramat: finished with preparing a backport-0.4 branch with the state you wanted 19:25 sfan5 will update the list of commits, then you can take another look if you want 19:27 paramat thanks, appreciated 19:36 sfan5 paramat: updated, please take another look; also: https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/projects 20:03 paramat will do 20:22 sfan5 paramat: looked at it yet? 20:22 sfan5 since i'd like to push the creation of the backports branch 20:22 paramat ok, will do now, sorry, hub stuff 20:24 paramat fine for MT engine 20:25 sfan5 ok thanks 20:26 sfan5 Shara: same thing for the engine -> https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commits/backport-0.4 20:26 sfan5 if you're running the release versions of the engine you might want to upgrade to that 20:27 sfan5 rubenwardy: should the two version-touching commits be reverted on stable-0.4 then? (back to the "Merge 0.4.16 into stable-0.4" commit) 20:27 nerzhul sfan5, paramat nice job on backport branch 20:27 sfan5 thanks 20:27 nerzhul when do you want to release this branch ? 20:28 sfan5 merge it into stable-0.4 when 0.4.17 is released 20:28 nerzhul yes, but when do we want to release ? 20:28 sfan5 maybe at the start of feature freeze period of 0.5? 20:31 paramat well 0.5.0 is still far off, 0.4.17 is best released asap 20:32 paramat if they're close you reduce appetite for 0.5 20:33 sfan5 you can't fix ANY bugs for the stable version between the release of 0.4.17 and 0.5, that will make server owners angry 20:33 paramat oh hmm 20:33 sfan5 like i said: 0.5 has enough features already, we don't need to worry about 0.4.17 being "too good" 20:34 paramat lord fingle tells me he'll probably have time to work on android in January, so 0.5 should be 2-3 months into 2018 20:34 Shara sfan5: thanks 20:34 paramat otherwise we lose the chance to move players to the official app 20:35 sfan5 paramat: if you consider the state of the mtg backport branch fine we should be looking to make a news post on the forums 20:35 paramat android needs to be reasonable before 0.5 is released, rubenwardy agrees 20:35 Shara rubenwardy already made a post 20:36 paramat hm mtg backport also has lots of features 20:36 Shara https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18850 20:36 sfan5 i expected you to say that :P 20:37 sfan5 oh ruben already made a post, thanks 20:38 sfan5 paramat: for mtg i considered api changes fine but applied the strict rule of having no new ingame content 20:38 Shara Worked on it with him earlier (though it's mostly his :P) 20:39 sfan5 since api changes are no user visible i don't think they discourage upgrading to 0.5 20:39 sfan5 not* 20:42 paramat they're modder visible =) 20:42 paramat https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/1948#issuecomment-345547820 21:09 sfan5 will apply changes later 21:09 sfan5 any concerns about force-pushing the backports branch? 21:20 paramat hm no-one's around, i can't judge that, sorry 21:45 sfan5 not doing that would make applying your changes fun as i'd have to revert 20 or so commits just to delete one 21:47 sfan5 i guess the rules don't apply to "backport-0.4" similar to how they don't apply to minetest/{minetestmapper,master-server} 21:53 paramat ok, since it affects backport branch only, force push is ok