| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:16 |
|
Jason232 joined #minetest |
| 00:18 |
|
reddit89_ joined #minetest |
| 00:32 |
|
garywhite1 joined #minetest |
| 00:35 |
|
frostsnow joined #minetest |
| 00:37 |
|
meldrian joined #minetest |
| 00:37 |
|
meldrian joined #minetest |
| 00:38 |
|
Ingar joined #minetest |
| 00:39 |
|
_Zaizen_[m] joined #minetest |
| 00:55 |
|
lunearity[m]1 joined #minetest |
| 01:05 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 01:10 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 01:12 |
|
TheAltHacker joined #minetest |
| 01:41 |
|
reddit89 joined #minetest |
| 01:56 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 02:44 |
|
Jason232_ joined #minetest |
| 03:28 |
|
queria joined #minetest |
| 03:29 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest |
| 03:34 |
|
queria joined #minetest |
| 03:48 |
|
erlehmann joined #minetest |
| 04:30 |
SwissalpS |
good practice question: if an event only needs to run every 5 minutes, is it better to use minetest.after() loop or add a globalstep? |
| 04:36 |
|
Jordan_ joined #minetest |
| 04:37 |
|
jordan4ibanez joined #minetest |
| 05:00 |
|
MTDiscord joined #minetest |
| 05:46 |
|
Jason232 joined #minetest |
| 05:48 |
|
frostsnow joined #minetest |
| 07:04 |
|
GNUHacker joined #minetest |
| 07:18 |
|
specing_ joined #minetest |
| 07:20 |
|
CWz joined #minetest |
| 07:36 |
|
reddit89_ joined #minetest |
| 07:36 |
|
appguru joined #minetest |
| 07:36 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest |
| 07:45 |
|
appguru1 joined #minetest |
| 08:00 |
|
definitelya joined #minetest |
| 08:04 |
|
Jason232_ joined #minetest |
| 08:05 |
|
olliy joined #minetest |
| 08:38 |
|
definitelya joined #minetest |
| 08:41 |
|
MTDiscord joined #minetest |
| 09:00 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest |
| 09:02 |
|
Fixer_ joined #minetest |
| 09:17 |
sfan5 |
minetest.after()'s event tracking code has to run anyway so that's technically better |
| 09:31 |
|
calcul0n_ joined #minetest |
| 09:45 |
|
JordanL2 joined #minetest |
| 09:48 |
SwissalpS |
thanks sfan5 :) |
| 10:17 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 10:47 |
|
sunyibo joined #minetest |
| 10:48 |
sunyibo |
I'm setting up a debian server for minetest. Where do I find my minetest directory? |
| 10:48 |
sfan5 |
if you installed from apt I think that'S /var/lib/minetest |
| 10:49 |
sfan5 |
maybe /var/lib/minetest/.minetest/ or smth |
| 10:49 |
sunyibo |
thanks |
| 11:11 |
sunyibo |
so I set up a server. How can I make it appear in the minetest 'Join Game' list? |
| 11:15 |
sfan5 |
enable the server_announce setting and also make sure the game port is externally accessible |
| 11:25 |
|
jvalleroy joined #minetest |
| 11:25 |
MTDiscord |
<savilli> to be more specific {server_address}:{port} is externally accessible |
| 11:27 |
|
jvalleroy joined #minetest |
| 11:50 |
|
Guest3456 joined #minetest |
| 12:06 |
|
KvL joined #minetest |
| 12:16 |
|
Flabb joined #minetest |
| 12:53 |
|
JordanL2 joined #minetest |
| 13:45 |
|
bingfengzs joined #minetest |
| 13:48 |
|
kamdard_ joined #minetest |
| 13:52 |
|
Alias joined #minetest |
| 14:06 |
|
queria joined #minetest |
| 14:23 |
|
fling joined #minetest |
| 14:37 |
|
ronoaldo joined #minetest |
| 15:16 |
|
Guest3456 joined #minetest |
| 16:03 |
|
appguru joined #minetest |
| 16:09 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Why would minetest.after be "tehcnically better"? |
| 16:09 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> First of all, you miss out on the actual dtime |
| 16:10 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Second, it's usually not even less code |
| 16:11 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> And third, I don't think that it's necessarily faster |
| 16:11 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> Waits for modlib shill.... |
| 16:11 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> There is one special case in which it could theoretically be faster |
| 16:11 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> wsor: Yes, modlib has a heap-based after, which is pretty dope |
| 16:11 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> The nice thing about minetest.after() is that if you no longer need a timer, you can just not register it again and its footprint becomes zero. If you're going to need a timer indefinitely though, then globalsteps are actually a bit better because there are inefficiencies in .after()'s scheduling that would show if you have a ton of stuff queued. |
| 16:12 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Not to mention the odd "reverse order of execution" |
| 16:12 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> If you need your globalstep to run after those of other mods, you can hardly use after-loops for that |
| 16:24 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 16:32 |
|
ArminJ joined #minetest |
| 17:16 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest |
| 17:16 |
sfan5 |
the "technically better" was based on it having a lower footprint |
| 17:16 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 17:18 |
|
Talkless joined #minetest |
| 17:24 |
|
Yad joined #minetest |
| 17:34 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Lower footprint? How so? |
| 17:34 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> I'm pretty sure it has a higher memory footprint |
| 17:34 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Globalstep: One function, which is inserted in the registered_globalsteps table with one upvalue (timer) |
| 17:35 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> minetest.after: One function, which has itself as upvalue, entry in minetest.after "queue" with empty argument list, timer and func fields |
| 17:54 |
MTDiscord |
<Benrob0329> If your constantly running something, just use a globalstep. If your only running something because it was triggered by something else, use minetest.after. |
| 17:54 |
MTDiscord |
<Benrob0329> *you're |
| 17:55 |
MTDiscord |
<Benrob0329> The performance differences under sane circumstances are negligible |
| 17:56 |
sfan5 |
@luatic because you do not add to the already numerous functions ran every globalstep |
| 17:56 |
sfan5 |
whether this matters, debatable |
| 18:02 |
|
delta23 joined #minetest |
| 18:11 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest |
| 18:11 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest |
| 18:47 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> sfan5: you do add to those, just that it is nested in yet another globalstep - which for instance reduces profiler helpfulness |
| 18:48 |
sfan5 |
I thought it could profile those? |
| 18:48 |
sfan5 |
if not that's an oversight in the profiler |
| 18:56 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> sfan5: the profiler can't hook minetest.after loops comfortably |
| 18:57 |
sfan5 |
depends on what comfortably means |
| 18:57 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> well, with all the register_* functions it's pretty trivial: just wrap the func in a func that measures the time |
| 18:58 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> minetest.after is intended for one-off-jobs though |
| 18:58 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> so how should they be aggregated? |
| 18:58 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> all the minetest.after callbacks per mod? |
| 19:18 |
Bombo |
is it possible to toggle creative mode on a running server? without restarting? |
| 19:18 |
|
specing joined #minetest |
| 19:19 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> technically yes |
| 19:19 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> you will probably end up in a half broken state however |
| 19:20 |
Bombo |
hm /privs shows i have 'creative' |
| 19:20 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> to explain you can change the setting via the api or /set, but issues can arises for things not dynamically updating |
| 19:22 |
Yad |
Is resume support for `git clone` still an unsolved problem? My reading on the topic suggests it was a known issue in 2010. |
| 19:23 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> ....resume support?.... |
| 19:24 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> I've rarely run into problems with it, but if you find an answer, I'm actually curious too. |
| 19:24 |
Yad |
Jonathon: As in how the `pack` file is rather large. |
| 19:24 |
Yad |
Warr: Nice! |
| 19:24 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Though tbh downloading the pack is usually less of an issue for me than just the server crapping out trying to make a pack. |
| 19:25 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> I think at least one mitigation I've found is creating the repo, adding the remote, and then using fetch instead of clone, which gives you more options like pulling earlier commits and then working your way forward through the tree piece by piece. |
| 19:25 |
Yad |
Here's the discussion I'm reading https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3954852/how-to-complete-a-git-clone-for-a-big-project-on-an-unstable-connection |
| 19:25 |
Yad |
Warr: oooh, I'm not familiar with `fetch` :D |
| 19:25 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> MOSTLY what I've done is create the repo and setup the remotes, and then just keep retrying the fetch until it goes through once, and like 99.9% of the time that works eventually. |
| 19:26 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Git clone is ALMOST just an alias for making a dir, doing a git init in it, setting up a remote, and then doing a git fetch and then git checkout inside, with the difference that if any of that fails, git clone will try to clean up everything |
| 19:26 |
Yad |
Warr: It's not necessarily failure I'm dealing with, just slow speeds and the need to pause and resume the download so I can use the bandwidth for other tasks. |
| 19:26 |
Yad |
Wow that's good to know! |
| 19:27 |
MTDiscord |
<Jonathon> seems you could make a simple script to run through a queue of stuff to clone while your asleep? |
| 19:27 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Most of the tools you use with git are themselves made of other smaller tools that you also have direct access to, so to some extent it's possible to break up the work into smaller chunks, though not always easy. |
| 19:28 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> The one place where it fails is that I don't know of any way to break apart a single object, so if the repo is reasonable-sized in every way except they added some huge mutli-GB data file, then that one file will probably always be an issue. |
| 19:28 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Hopefully that's rare enough though. |
| 19:28 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Worst case, find a thumb drive and a friend with a better connection, I guess, and then make sure you never lose your local clone. Once you've got the initial pack, things tend to get saner after that. |
| 19:29 |
sfan5 |
Bombo: if you don't have creative enabled globally you can just revoke the privilege |
| 19:30 |
Yad |
Well the suggestion is often to download the `pack` through another protocol with resume support, but my concern is whether Git will reject it. |
| 19:31 |
Yad |
Hmm, `fetch` seems to be behaving much more smartly. |
| 19:35 |
Yad |
I'm thinking maybe resume support exists but is invisible. |
| 19:36 |
Yad |
Because the `pack` completed impossibly fast this time. |
| 19:40 |
Yad |
Ah yep, it looks like `git fetch` is creating a separate `tmp_pack_` file for each segment. Very nice! |
| 19:43 |
|
calcul0n joined #minetest |
| 19:43 |
Yad |
Hmm, perhaps not. The sum of the segments is much larger than the true `pack` |
| 19:45 |
Bombo |
thx Jonathon sfan5 it half-works :) |
| 19:52 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> Yad: after fetching, if you have a bunch of broken temp packs, you can do a gc to clean them up |
| 19:53 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> I don't actually know how much git really attempts to find matching objects from broken previous fetches; it's possible it does, or it's possible you were just lucky this time. |
| 19:53 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> but if it worked, I guess it worked ? |
| 19:53 |
Yad |
Warr: Thank you, I actually need exactly that. However the resume feature is still lacking. Hopefully fetching new commits will be faster. |
| 19:54 |
Yad |
Warr: I'm not seeing how to say it worked, as the segment which actually got the fetch done, was the same size as the full pack |
| 19:55 |
MTDiscord |
<Warr1024> I mean it IS possible that git is just finding stuff in old packs and copying it in. After all, that's how repacking works: it gathers the objects, writes them into a new pack, and then eventually cleans up the old packs. |
| 19:55 |
Yad |
Warr: I guess this just goes to show most developers work over very fast connections :P |
| 19:55 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest |
| 20:13 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 20:21 |
|
Jason232 joined #minetest |
| 20:45 |
|
Jason232_ joined #minetest |
| 21:13 |
|
Jason232 joined #minetest |
| 21:31 |
|
definitelya_ joined #minetest |
| 21:41 |
|
Oksanaa joined #minetest |
| 21:47 |
|
crabycowman123 joined #minetest |
| 21:59 |
|
v-rob joined #minetest |
| 22:01 |
|
est31 joined #minetest |
| 22:08 |
|
GNUHacker joined #minetest |
| 22:15 |
|
appguru joined #minetest |
| 22:19 |
|
CWz joined #minetest |
| 22:48 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 23:04 |
|
Jason232_ joined #minetest |
| 23:14 |
|
ronoaldo joined #minetest |
| 23:28 |
|
Guest3456 joined #minetest |
| 23:36 |
|
DarkSide joined #minetest |
| 23:37 |
DarkSide |
Hi all |
| 23:38 |
DarkSide |
MT Forum admin online? |
| 23:45 |
|
proller joined #minetest |
| 23:52 |
MTDiscord |
<wwar> @rubenwardy hopefully worthes a ping ^ |
