| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 01:29 |
|
Beton_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:04 |
|
Cornelia joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:31 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:37 |
paramat |
merging #7104 |
| 03:37 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7104 -- Spawn level: Add 'get_spawn_level(x, z)' API by paramat |
| 03:41 |
paramat |
merged |
| 03:57 |
|
AndroBuilder joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:33 |
paramat |
merging #7120 |
| 04:33 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7120 -- Lua_api.txt: Split long lines part 2 by paramat |
| 04:40 |
paramat |
merged |
| 05:32 |
|
Darcidride joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:09 |
|
Andrej1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:38 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:40 |
Krock |
Will push this typo fix in 5 minutes: https://pastebin.com/raw/wzs61YbL (solves #7118) |
| 08:40 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7118 -- Lighting glitch since "Variable name fix + structure creation unrolling in lighting code" |
| 08:46 |
Krock |
pushing... |
| 09:03 |
|
AntumD joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:11 |
nerzhul |
ty Krock |
| 09:11 |
Krock |
np |
| 09:11 |
nerzhul |
it seems a forced push commit didn't pass on my end |
| 09:11 |
Krock |
yes, I saw your comment :) |
| 09:11 |
nerzhul |
if should be getNodeNoCheck(relpos, ...) :) |
| 09:11 |
nerzhul |
oh yes, i'm not sure it passed by mail heh |
| 09:12 |
nerzhul |
at least not squashing commits permits to bissect it easily :p |
| 09:31 |
|
SilverLuke joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:41 |
|
fwhcat joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:52 |
|
fwhcat_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:52 |
Krock |
Any demand on starting a new discussion for the meeting today to collect the discussion points? |
| 09:56 |
|
fwhcat joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:22 |
nerzhul |
i cannot be there, it's my son's birthday, but my point is to release 0.4.17 ASAP to push many fixes to 0.4.X branch, and if we need it do a 0.4.18 with 0.5. There are too many bugfixes waiting for 0.5 and we don't have a release date as some required features are not there |
| 10:25 |
Krock |
nerzhul, happy birthday to him :) I hope other devs will have some time, otherwise this can be moved to next week. I don't have a 0.5 release in mind yet for exactly that reason of too many PRs/issues open |
| 10:26 |
nerzhul |
Yeah i agree 0.5 is not important now, but 0.4.17 is important, there is a very huge patchset useful for players, also on android |
| 10:35 |
|
Lymkwi joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:09 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:10 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:13 |
|
Darcidride_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:16 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:30 |
nerzhul |
is this normal that the voxel area doesn't reorder points ? |
| 11:43 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:47 |
nerzhul |
Krock if you get time, i pushed a PR to add unittests on VoxelArea object: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/7121 |
| 12:00 |
|
Wuzzy joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:04 |
Megaf |
Are we good with web#121 now? |
| 12:04 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest.github.io/issues/121 -- Channel description improvements 2. by Megaf |
| 12:08 |
Megaf |
sfan5: What's the issue on having a webchat for -hub? |
| 12:08 |
sfan5 |
people can't talk |
| 12:08 |
Megaf |
all other channels have |
| 12:08 |
sfan5 |
well I guess that applies to -dev too |
| 12:08 |
Megaf |
and some of mt members think it can have a link and some of mt members think it can't |
| 12:09 |
sfan5 |
I haven't seen anyone advocating for a link which is why I asked |
| 12:09 |
Megaf |
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
| 12:10 |
Megaf |
Shara: rubenwardy: ping |
| 12:10 |
Megaf |
webchat is muted on -dev as well |
| 12:10 |
Megaf |
yet there's a link |
| 12:11 |
Megaf |
sfan5: ^ |
| 12:12 |
sfan5 |
if you look two lines above you can see I already noticed |
| 12:14 |
Megaf |
I'd say we remove webchat links for every channel |
| 12:16 |
sfan5 |
you want people to figure out this irc thing on their own? nobody will ever join |
| 12:16 |
sfan5 |
it's fine with webchat links for every channel |
| 12:21 |
Megaf |
I first added webchat link for eveychannel because people can always try to join and try to send a private message to an op |
| 12:24 |
|
MegafTestingWebC joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:25 |
|
MegafTestingWebC joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:25 |
|
MegafTestingWebC joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:25 |
Megaf |
Ok, even authed to the services it's not possible to message here |
| 12:25 |
|
MegafTestingWebC left #minetest-dev |
| 12:31 |
Megaf |
sfan5: https://github.com/minetest/minetest.github.io/pull/121#issuecomment-372026266 |
| 13:18 |
|
Beton joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:29 |
|
BakerPrime joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:44 |
|
fwhcat joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:37 |
|
Gundul joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:37 |
|
Lone-Star joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:40 |
|
CBugDCoder joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:02 |
|
AntumD joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:05 |
|
Antum joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:39 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:58 |
Krock |
nore, rubenwardy, sfan5, Shara, sofar: Would you have some time around 18:00 or 19:00 UTC ? |
| 16:59 |
sfan5 |
fine with me |
| 17:00 |
Krock |
I collected a few ideas/points to discuss in the meeting: https://github.com/orgs/minetest/teams/engine/discussions/6 Feel free to extend it |
| 17:01 |
Krock |
^ addressed to everybody |
| 17:05 |
sfan5 |
oh right UTC, 18:00 would be better in that case |
| 17:22 |
|
AntumDeluge joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:31 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:31 |
paramat |
i can do meeting at 18 or 19 UTC |
| 17:33 |
Krock |
that's great. for now it looks like 18:00 fits better |
| 17:33 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:34 |
Shara |
I will be mostly here from now until I fall asleep, whatever time that happens to be. :) |
| 17:42 |
paramat |
added some points to discussion doc |
| 18:06 |
Krock |
Four devs - not too many, should we start anyway? |
| 18:07 |
sfan5 |
better than none |
| 18:07 |
Krock |
haha of course :) |
| 18:09 |
paramat |
nore rubenwardy sofar ShadowNinja |
| 18:10 |
|
YuGiOhJCJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:10 |
Krock |
Okay, let's get started with those who are currently here. First topic: https://github.com/orgs/minetest/teams/engine/discussions/5 Doxygen as a new PR rule. Opinions? |
| 18:11 |
paramat |
i need to research the advantages because i don't see many at the moment, i'm sure there are more than i realise though |
| 18:12 |
Krock |
It requires more time to document the functions but that's exactly what we need: documentation. |
| 18:12 |
sfan5 |
i doubt a doxygen documentation is that useful |
| 18:12 |
Krock |
for larger functions it can indeed provide helpful information about what the function does |
| 18:13 |
Shara |
Documentation is definitely important, but whether that's the exact approach needed, I'm not sure. |
| 18:13 |
sfan5 |
well, I consider it common sense to document large c9ode sections with overviews |
| 18:13 |
paramat |
i agree with better comments, just not sure about doxygen or insisting on it, yet |
| 18:13 |
sfan5 |
but I don't think it needs to be 1) in Doxygen format or 2) a rule |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
indeed. in-line documentation does its job too |
| 18:15 |
Shara |
We could just do with... more of it |
| 18:15 |
Krock |
so http://doxy.minetest.net/ will just stay there as a product of trying new things? |
| 18:15 |
paramat |
i'm not keen on anything that requires a certain program to view, clarity when viewing comments in code seems highest priority |
| 18:15 |
sfan5 |
probably |
| 18:16 |
paramat |
doxy format is a litte messy looking |
| 18:17 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:17 |
Krock |
so, majority is opposed to using doxygen. rather do proper in-line commenting? |
| 18:17 |
paramat |
i'm opposed for now |
| 18:18 |
sfan5 |
yes |
| 18:18 |
Shara |
Same |
| 18:20 |
Krock |
Next idea: Shall we open new project to categorize long, medium and long-term issues? |
| 18:20 |
sfan5 |
categorize in which ways? |
| 18:21 |
Krock |
rubenwardy doesn't define that exactly in his post but I assume it's defined by the difficulty of the implementation to solve the issue |
| 18:21 |
Krock |
i.e. PR size and amount of effort, I guess |
| 18:22 |
Krock |
or even more likely how important they are, like we already have the label Low priority, Blocker and High priority |
| 18:22 |
sfan5 |
sounds like more like what should be looked at right now, later or far in the future |
| 18:23 |
Krock |
indeed |
| 18:23 |
sfan5 |
which is pretty pointless to me, since usually devs work on what they want to work on |
| 18:23 |
Krock |
I feel the same. Labels already exist for important issues |
| 18:23 |
Shara |
I took that to mean more about roadmaps |
| 18:24 |
Shara |
But I'm not really sure |
| 18:25 |
paramat |
difficult to discuss without rubenwardy, discuss another time maybe |
| 18:25 |
Krock |
Projects would however show them more easily and allow to move them to "WIP", "Needs review" and "Complete" |
| 18:28 |
Krock |
Noted as "needs further discussion". Let's go on with the PR discussions: #6660 is waiting for quite a while, being rather trivial |
| 18:28 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6660 -- Remove caching from getTextureDirs by numberZero |
| 18:30 |
sfan5 |
my stance: " seems fine to me +1 " |
| 18:30 |
Krock |
rubenwardy took back his review - but for now I think it's best to merge it |
| 18:31 |
paramat |
i'm neutral |
| 18:31 |
Krock |
the settings speed is another topic and can be solved in a later PR |
| 18:32 |
Krock |
will merge as-is |
| 18:33 |
Krock |
for the reason that it currently only worsens the player experience with the cached value |
| 18:34 |
Krock |
#6951 CSM, security related |
| 18:34 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6951 -- [CSM] Don't create the script environment if CSM is disabled by red-001 |
| 18:34 |
paramat |
i assume 6660 doesn't affect in-game performance? |
| 18:35 |
Krock |
paramat, it only does on-load |
| 18:35 |
paramat |
fine |
| 18:35 |
Krock |
but even then it's a very small delay |
| 18:36 |
Krock |
Regarding 6851: it moves the death formspec back to C++ to not load the environment without CSM enabled |
| 18:37 |
Krock |
Shara, may I ask what exactly was the issue with it? "For example i believe at least one of Shara's servers are closed to the public until these go in." (paramat) |
| 18:38 |
Shara |
I assume that comment was not about 6851 |
| 18:38 |
paramat |
? that's another issue |
| 18:38 |
Krock |
is it the aspect of being able to change builtin to include cheats? |
| 18:38 |
Krock |
paramat, what issue did you mean then? |
| 18:38 |
Shara |
My server is closed to new users until I can safely limit/prevent new mapgen |
| 18:38 |
paramat |
for Shara's servers i'm referring to world edge changes that are todo for backport |
| 18:39 |
Shara |
I think the needed PRs were merged now, but not yet in backport branch |
| 18:39 |
paramat |
nothing to do with CSM builtin |
| 18:39 |
Krock |
ah, so these are two separate issues. My bad for connecting them |
| 18:39 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:39 |
Shara |
No problem :) |
| 18:40 |
paramat |
6951 seems a good idea for simplicity and avoiding the alternative, rubenwardy is strongly opposed to what happened to the death formspec |
| 18:41 |
paramat |
considering the controversy of CSM i think we need to roll it back a little as 6951 does |
| 18:41 |
Shara |
A lot of people wanted that changed. |
| 18:43 |
paramat |
it seems a bad idea to start using CSM for builtin stuff, and is another method of cheating that needs securing |
| 18:43 |
sfan5 |
well 6951 certainly can't be merged as-is |
| 18:44 |
paramat |
red-3-2-2019 |
| 18:45 |
sfan5 |
the pr does not remove the need for hashing builtin btw |
| 18:45 |
paramat |
oh ok :) |
| 18:46 |
sfan5 |
if a servers wants to disable client-provided mods, but use its own csm mods you need to load builtin |
| 18:46 |
sfan5 |
(I assume this is planned) |
| 18:46 |
paramat |
rubenwardy's comment https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6736#issuecomment-358479221 |
| 18:46 |
Krock |
#5393 is about that exact issue |
| 18:47 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/5393 -- Server-provided client-side scripting |
| 18:47 |
sfan5 |
otherwise the server has two options 1) don't allow use of CSM at all or 2) make us of CSM but allow the client to inject their own code |
| 18:47 |
sfan5 |
+e |
| 18:50 |
Krock |
so builtin should be secured on a way that at least minetest has to be recompiled to make builtin modification possible |
| 18:50 |
Krock |
that's possibly the most we can do for this, as the client's data can not be trusted |
| 18:51 |
nerzhul |
can someone take a look at https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/7121 ? :) |
| 18:51 |
nerzhul |
#7121 |
| 18:51 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7121 -- Add Voxelarea unittests by nerzhul |
| 18:52 |
Krock |
^ our next discussion topic |
| 18:52 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:53 |
paramat |
i think that should wait until after the meeting |
| 18:53 |
paramat |
but will look |
| 18:53 |
nerzhul |
oh it's the dev meeting :) |
| 18:54 |
sfan5 |
concept sounds good to me |
| 18:54 |
|
TC01 joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:54 |
sfan5 |
haven't found any code problems from a quick look |
| 18:55 |
Krock |
left two comments, otherwise looks ok |
| 18:56 |
paramat |
lol |
| 18:58 |
Krock |
There are still a few points on the list.. so let's proceed with #6900 - should we revert the previous feature PR to call after_place_node or merge this one? |
| 18:58 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6900 -- core.rotate_node: Do not trigger after_place_node by SmallJoker |
| 18:58 |
sfan5 |
this one IMO |
| 18:58 |
Krock |
Maybe someone has got a better idea on how to work around this callback loop problem |
| 19:01 |
Krock |
Namely https://github.com/minetest-mods/nixie_tubes/ seems to be broken due this issue, so I will test again the PR (last test was too long ago) and merge it if the loop is fixed. Is that okay? |
| 19:03 |
paramat |
no opinion |
| 19:04 |
Krock |
Fine. Does anyone have an android build env set up to test #6796 ? |
| 19:04 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6796 -- Android build fixes for c++11 by stujones11 |
| 19:04 |
nerzhul |
Krock: i got it |
| 19:05 |
paramat |
hm i'm still waiting for lord fingle to get involved in android dev as he said he might |
| 19:05 |
sfan5 |
I don't but I could probably try a build of that tomorrow |
| 19:05 |
Krock |
paramat, at the end we could wait forever |
| 19:05 |
paramat |
yes, can't wait for him |
| 19:05 |
Krock |
sfan5, that would be great if you could do that. Thanks. |
| 19:05 |
paramat |
obviously |
| 19:06 |
paramat |
i'll PM him on the forum again concerning controls |
| 19:07 |
rubenwardy |
hi |
| 19:07 |
paramat |
woo |
| 19:07 |
nerzhul |
Krock: maybe i can test it this evening too |
| 19:07 |
Krock |
hello rubenwardy |
| 19:07 |
nerzhul |
and at least port android.mk fixes at a point |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
nerzhul, no, you shall be at your son's birthday party ;) |
| 19:08 |
nerzhul |
lol it was this afternoon :) |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
nice. testing is welcome |
| 19:09 |
Krock |
Automatically generated settings headers: #6728 |
| 19:09 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6728 -- Autogenerate settings header by numberZero |
| 19:09 |
nerzhul |
i hope at a point we should switch to cmake based build, but i don't know if it's possible easily, using the cmake + ndk standards google added for those use case |
| 19:09 |
sfan5 |
haven't reviewed, can't comment |
| 19:10 |
Krock |
but concept-wise? Is generating the headers generally good? |
| 19:11 |
Krock |
the description could also do well with a more detailed explication |
| 19:13 |
sfan5 |
it has performance advantages for sure, but I'm not fully convinced yet |
| 19:14 |
nerzhul |
if we use primitives types for our core settings the performance will be increased and we can remove all settings caches |
| 19:18 |
nerzhul |
the idea is good, but it's not easy. I think at a point we should have a blazing fast settings object containing the good primitives |
| 19:22 |
Krock |
Okay. The 0.4.17 release - what other fixes for the backport are we missing? |
| 19:22 |
paramat |
rubenwardy see logs, any comments on discussion? |
| 19:22 |
paramat |
world edge stuff |
| 19:23 |
Krock |
If there are none, we need a volunteer to get the backport PR up-to-date so it can finally be released |
| 19:24 |
Krock |
paramat, the "world edge stuff" is basically the 4 PRs here? https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/6746#issuecomment-368584307 |
| 19:24 |
paramat |
yes |
| 19:26 |
Krock |
they were tested and approved. Sounds good... |
| 19:26 |
Wayward_One |
Krock, I've already tested #6796 and it works |
| 19:26 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6796 -- Android build fixes for c++11 by stujones11 |
| 19:28 |
sfan5 |
(I'll be gone now) |
| 19:28 |
Krock |
Wayward_One, that's great to hear. |
| 19:29 |
rubenwardy |
doxygen should be used if a function or class needs a comment. functions only need comments if their behaviour is not obvious, and non-trivial classes should always have comments to define scope |
| 19:29 |
rubenwardy |
paramat: false |
| 19:29 |
rubenwardy |
paramat i'm not keen on anything that requires a certain program to view, clarity when viewing comments in code seems highest priority |
| 19:30 |
rubenwardy |
doxygen comments are literally just an extra slash |
| 19:31 |
paramat |
yes not too bad, but @param @return too |
| 19:31 |
rubenwardy |
you don't need those |
| 19:31 |
paramat |
i don't mind a 3rd slash |
| 19:31 |
rubenwardy |
and they're hardly less clear |
| 19:31 |
paramat |
well i mean, clutter |
| 19:32 |
rubenwardy |
the project things was supposed to be similar to dev.minetest.net/TODO but less pipe dreams |
| 19:35 |
rubenwardy |
also doxygen doesn't require an extra program |
| 19:35 |
Krock |
rubenwardy, it's difficult to tell when a function needs documentation and when it's superfluous. |
| 19:35 |
rubenwardy |
just a web browser |
| 19:36 |
Krock |
a web browser to read the data that was parsed by another program for doxy.minetest.net? |
| 19:38 |
rubenwardy |
also, you can just view the source code |
| 19:40 |
paramat |
a web browser is a separate program |
| 19:40 |
rubenwardy |
do you really not have a web browser open to code? |
| 19:40 |
rubenwardy |
also, not necessarily. You could be using an OS like emacs |
| 19:40 |
Krock |
nobody gets around StackOverflow, paramat. |
| 19:40 |
paramat |
most do, but i'm talking about the principle of it |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
in any case, there's the source code |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
I'd argue documenting every single method is worse than not using doxygen |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
+that |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
// Gets a texture |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
/// Gets a texture |
| 19:41 |
rubenwardy |
ITexture *getTexture(); |
| 19:42 |
paramat |
viewing the comments in source code is obvious and irrelevant to the argument |
| 19:42 |
rubenwardy |
how is it irrelevant? |
| 19:43 |
paramat |
i'm not actually strongly opposed to doxygen comments, just not keen |
| 19:45 |
rubenwardy |
anyway, never |
| 19:45 |
rubenwardy |
anyway, nevermind |
| 19:45 |
rubenwardy |
I feel like a rule is too restrictive anyway |
| 19:45 |
paramat |
really, i'm almost neutral. just oppposed to insisting on specifically doxy right now, as are the other devs |
| 19:47 |
nerzhul |
personnally i will try to implement doxygen comments on my future PR modified functions |
| 19:47 |
nerzhul |
if some go to that way we can start to cover the code |
| 19:47 |
paramat |
and cautious because md formatting for lua_api.txt has made a visual mess of the original and i'm not sure it was a good idea |
| 19:47 |
nerzhul |
but yes, comments inside functions are always useful |
| 19:48 |
paramat |
if doxygen only extracts comments i can't see much advantage, comments are best viewed in context |
| 19:48 |
rubenwardy |
not really |
| 19:48 |
rubenwardy |
doxygen has search |
| 19:48 |
nerzhul |
not only comments, you have also relational data |
| 19:48 |
nerzhul |
it's a standard in C++ industry |
| 19:48 |
rubenwardy |
yes |
| 19:49 |
paramat |
yes, there are probably advantages i am not aware of, need to research :) |
| 19:49 |
rubenwardy |
it might as well be part of the C++ language for how ubiquitous it is |
| 19:49 |
rubenwardy |
my favourite part is this: http://doxy.minetest.net/classServer__coll__graph.svg |
| 19:49 |
rubenwardy |
note how there's links |
| 19:50 |
paramat |
ok how can that create that if we only add a 3rd slash? |
| 19:50 |
nerzhul |
it's nice, but also shows that server class has too many direct relations |
| 19:50 |
nerzhul |
paramat all IDE supports doxygen correctly, and for those comments there is only one norme |
| 19:50 |
nerzhul |
norm* |
| 19:51 |
rubenwardy |
it's good software practice, as long as you don't go overboard like my example |
| 19:51 |
paramat |
it's actually possible i will support doxy comments after some research |
| 19:52 |
paramat |
so, nuff said =) |
| 19:53 |
paramat |
so there are some meeting topics still to do |
| 19:54 |
paramat |
when to release 0.4.17 and 0.5.0 |
| 19:54 |
paramat |
how far do we allow server-sent CSM to delay 0.5.0? |
| 19:55 |
paramat |
considering it will probably be 'compiled out' of 0.5.0 anyway |
| 19:59 |
Krock |
basically only 0.4.17 is a thing. we can wait with 0.5.0 a bit |
| 19:59 |
Krock |
no need to rush for two releases at once |
| 20:02 |
Krock |
of course, we can delay this topic to next week 8) |
| 20:04 |
paramat |
btw is it ok to encourage people to use backports and consider it somewhat 'stable'? |
| 20:05 |
Shara |
Since it's meant to be bugfixes, I would hope so. |
| 20:05 |
paramat |
i mean, if it's fairly stable then we may not have much need to make a 0.4.17 release soon |
| 20:06 |
Krock |
rolling stable version :D |
| 20:06 |
paramat |
yeah |
| 20:06 |
Shara |
A release would also have to contain any features, and not just be bugfixes |
| 20:06 |
paramat |
well, 0.4.17 will only be bugfixes |
| 20:06 |
Krock |
no, releases are only new versions, which does not imply any changes |
| 20:07 |
Shara |
Would be rather pointless with no changes |
| 20:09 |
paramat |
bugfixes. also 0.4.17 is intended to be 'the final 0.4 stable version' |
| 20:10 |
paramat |
ie wrap up 0.4 properly with a proper release process and feature freeze testing |
| 20:11 |
paramat |
which it seems will happen at release of 0.5.0, or maybe just after |
| 20:15 |
paramat |
anyway, meeting seems over |
| 20:15 |
Krock |
yes.. thanks for your efforts :) |
| 20:15 |
Krock |
efforts, time, opinion, whatever. |
| 20:20 |
p_gimeno |
aww, I hoped #6898 would be discussed |
| 20:20 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6898 -- Allow distinguishing mods by modpack by pgimeno |
| 20:21 |
p_gimeno |
it's possible to make a backpatchable, but ugly version |
| 20:22 |
p_gimeno |
but having worlds breaking just for adding stuff to the mods folder sounds unacceptable to me |
| 20:27 |
paramat |
many devs may not have time for MTG, which is fine, but here are 2 PRs for consideration game#2062 game#2068 |
| 20:27 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2062 -- Icesheet biome: Add 'default:cave_ice' node to enable caves in land ice by paramat |
| 20:27 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2068 -- Pine trees: Add small pine tree and mix into forests by paramat |
| 20:29 |
paramat |
#7117 is simple and ready |
| 20:30 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7117 -- Biome API: Add 'get_biome_name(biome_id)' API by paramat |
| 20:30 |
Krock |
p_gimeno, yes but the meeting already took longer than expected with the other topics. That PR and 0.4.17 discussion have to be done next week, as too long meetings are quite tiring |
| 20:33 |
Shara |
paramat: sure, will check pine trees |
| 20:56 |
p_gimeno |
Krock: thanks |
| 21:12 |
|
fwhcat joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:13 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:43 |
|
Fixer_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:52 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:28 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:35 |
paramat |
thanks |
| 23:36 |
paramat |
will merge those 2 later then |
| 23:37 |
Shara |
:) |
| 23:38 |
paramat |
posted suggestion for new needles texture game#2075 |
| 23:38 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2075 -- Thicker pine needles texture |
| 23:40 |
Shara |
I find the opaque version shown there ugly... but then I always find opaque leaves ugly |
| 23:42 |
paramat |
yes doesn't look great |
| 23:43 |
paramat |
maybe i could try using bark colour for the opaque background colour |
| 23:43 |
Shara |
That could make more sense |
| 23:46 |
paramat |
maybe a dark grey-brown, black is a bit severe |
