| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:54 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:17 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:36 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:00 |
|
MTDiscord joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:32 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:38 |
|
YuGiOhJCJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:12 |
|
fluxionary joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:46 |
ROllerozxa |
is there any particular reason luajit is statically linked for the windows builds? I believe this makes it impossible to require() a native library (e.g. luasocket, as I am trying to get working right now) as it needs to link against a lua51.dll, that does not exist because it's inside of the executable |
| 09:47 |
ROllerozxa |
(asking sfan5 I suppose since minetest's luajit for windows is built from here: https://github.com/sfan5/mingw-pkgs/blob/master/luajit) |
| 11:01 |
sfan5 |
it always was that way |
| 11:07 |
ROllerozxa |
I know |
| 11:25 |
|
Lupercus joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:56 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:37 |
|
Desour joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:08 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:10 |
|
SFENCE_arch joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:19 |
|
Noisytoot joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:20 |
sfan5 |
whats the status on 5.9.1? |
| 15:24 |
SFENCE |
Delayed to next meeting now. |
| 15:40 |
sfan5 |
ROllerozxa: this is the reason https://x0.at/Rj_O.txt |
| 15:41 |
sfan5 |
I even checked what msys2 does since they also have clang and they just build statically :trollface: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/master/mingw-w64-luajit/PKGBUILD#L66 |
| 15:44 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:49 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> sfan5: the sooner it gets released the better. It's been almost a month we've been out with a half broken release |
| 15:51 |
sfan5 |
looks like we're basically waiting for two PRs, one of which is mine |
| 15:54 |
MTDiscord |
<sfence> #15122 Trivial one... for 5.9.1 release... so we can say, that MacOS 12 and newer are supported at least. |
| 15:54 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/15122 -- Generate Minetest.app on MacOS 12, so at least MacOS 12 will be supported. by sfence |
| 16:23 |
|
Desour joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:35 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:04 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:12 |
|
fluxionary joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:36 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:54 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> What's the lowest MacOS version MTE could run on in terms of APIs used etc. and not in terms of "what build pipeline allows"? |
| 17:57 |
SFENCE |
I was able to compile it with MacOSX10.15 SDK. But I don't have feedback if it runnable yet. |
| 18:00 |
SFENCE |
With MacOSX10.14 SDK some requied curl functions was missing. |
| 18:02 |
SFENCE |
Herowl: I believe it will be possible to support macOS 10.15 only with updating build process. |
| 18:53 |
SFENCE |
Herowl: By experiences from #15065, there was a problem with linking... aplication was linkded with symbols avaliable only in newer version of macOS. |
| 18:53 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/15065 -- minetest 5.9.0 release build cannot be run on macOS 10.15 Catalina since it was compiled for macOS 13 |
| 18:56 |
|
Sokomine joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:05 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:11 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> another 5.9 regression: #15105 |
| 19:11 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/15105 -- Upright sprite animation is broken on MT5.9.0 |
| 19:25 |
Krock |
not if you use my PC |
| 19:25 |
sfan5 |
tbh I ignored that issue becaue half of the fields were "No response" |
| 19:35 |
|
Desour joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:43 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:43 |
Mantar |
oh, my bad |
| 19:44 |
Mantar |
I'll fix that in a bit |
| 19:54 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:56 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Mantar: not needed, i already have a fix |
| 20:01 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> do we maybe want more priority labels |
| 20:02 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> currently we have low priority, untagged (which could mean either medium priority or undecided priority), and high priority, which i feel isn't granular enough |
| 20:03 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> for example i'd now like to tag #9357 as "higher priority (imo) than your average untagged issue, but probably not quite high priority" |
| 20:03 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/9357 -- Mapgen: "Unfinished" y-slices with num_emerge_threads > 1 |
| 20:04 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Tbh an "elevated" priority could be a good idea |
| 20:05 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> We have p1-p4 and p6 labels (untagged is p5) in VL |
| 20:05 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> P1 is "critical", for crashes and other serious stuff, like possible data lose. |
| 20:05 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> P2 is high |
| 20:05 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> P3 is elevated |
| 20:06 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> P4 is medium (theoretically more important than untagged, unworthy of elevation but standing out somehow) |
| 20:06 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> P6 is low |
| 20:07 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> It's not like it's enforced thoroughly though, we're severely undermanned for that and many issues are ancient |
| 20:08 |
sfan5 |
priority is kind of a meme anyway since 80% of what people work work on is their own interests |
| 20:09 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> currently i'm not looking for a way to forcefully slap a priority label on anything, i'm just hoping to have some labels that can be used to attract attention. |
| 20:10 |
Desour |
if you want to draw attention, a good way is to mention the issue here on irc |
| 20:10 |
Desour |
as could be seen just before |
| 20:11 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> well, i did that too, en passant as part of the priority discussion ;) |
| 20:11 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> We're applying priorities both to issues and PRs. When reviewing PRs, I tend to look at higher priorities, for example, to review first (skipping sometimes for whatever reason, but at least considering those) |
| 20:12 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> (in VL) |
| 20:12 |
Desour |
sorry, I'm not good at speech figures. what does the en passant chess move have to do with this @luatic? x) |
| 20:13 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Desour: obviously, while i was chatting, i was enjoying a game of chess, and in that game, i happened to make an en passant move x) |
| 20:13 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Anyway, it's obviously not so simple with issues, because high priority that linger around tend to be the non-trivial harder tougher unclear ones, and the priority itself doesn't move them closer to fixing anyway |
| 20:29 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:37 |
|
LandarVargan joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:05 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:15 |
|
Sokomine joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:23 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:30 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> I'm against the multiple priority labels. Having something labelled anyway is already a nice incentive to ignore it. And I agree with sfan5, people pick whatever they want anyway. I think that the current "High priority" label is enough (+ "good first issue" for new entries) |
| 21:30 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> *labelled "low priority" anyway |
| 21:32 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> rather, if we want to find more contributors, we should consider platforms like https://www.codetriage.com/ |
| 21:58 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:59 |
|
fluxionary joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:35 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:35 |
|
panwolfram joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:59 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:04 |
LandarVargan |
cmd mode |
| 23:04 |
LandarVargan |
heh, forgot I joined this channel |
| 23:05 |
|
Eragon joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:05 |
|
LandarVargan joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:05 |
|
LandarVargan left #minetest-dev |
| 23:17 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:35 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:41 |
|
SFENCE joined #minetest-dev |
