Time Nick Message 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 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 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... 09:11 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 09:52 Krock Any demand on starting a new discussion for the meeting today to collect the discussion points? 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 11:30 nerzhul is this normal that the voxel area doesn't reorder points ? 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 12:04 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 12:25 Megaf Ok, even authed to the services it's not possible to message here 12:31 Megaf sfan5: https://github.com/minetest/minetest.github.io/pull/121#issuecomment-372026266 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 17:31 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 17:34 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 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 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 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 18:53 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 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 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