| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:47 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 01:59 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:54 |
|
AntumDeluge joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:22 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:29 |
|
ANAND joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:42 |
|
Cornelia joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:25 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:16 |
|
fwhcat joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:42 |
|
longerstaff13-m joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:51 |
|
ensonic joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:15 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:16 |
|
BakerPrime joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:19 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:03 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:25 |
|
YuGiOhJCJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:50 |
|
troller joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:02 |
|
Andrej1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:12 |
|
nerzhul joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:25 |
|
proller__ joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:09 |
|
lumberJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:23 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:45 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:15 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:18 |
|
ANAND joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:47 |
|
Beton joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:07 |
|
lumberJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:44 |
|
Player-2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:01 |
|
Wuzzy joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:26 |
|
ANAND joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:39 |
|
IcyDiamond joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:03 |
Krock |
nerzhul, nore, paramat, rubenwardy, sfan5, Shara, sofar - I would like to do a meeting in ~an hour (or later, if desired) to discuss the points here: https://github.com/orgs/minetest/teams/engine/discussions/9 |
| 17:04 |
paramat |
i'll be here |
| 17:04 |
sfan5 |
szre |
| 17:04 |
sfan5 |
sure* |
| 17:04 |
Krock |
Please add there more points if you'd like to discuss them in the meeting |
| 17:04 |
Krock |
Great :) |
| 17:20 |
Shara |
Should be here |
| 17:27 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:38 |
nerzhul |
i will lunch but go for 0.4.17 |
| 17:42 |
* VanessaE |
growls at paramat |
| 17:47 |
paramat |
sorry for that :3 |
| 18:03 |
Krock |
nore, paramat, sfan5, Shara, sofar. I'd like to start with our meeting now. We're about to discuss about 0.4.17 again |
| 18:03 |
Krock |
also rubenwardy ^ |
| 18:03 |
VanessaE |
sounds like I piped up just in time :P |
| 18:04 |
Krock |
Question is when. When do we want to release 0.4.17? In the last weeks I've visited a view servers to see how it's going and ran singleplayer worlds |
| 18:04 |
Krock |
Unlike 0.5.0 it doesn't suffer from occasional segfaults and is surely stable enough for a release |
| 18:05 |
sfan5 |
The question is how many more fixes / adjustments from 0.5 we want backported into 0.4.17 |
| 18:06 |
VanessaE |
well, fwiw my servers have been running 3d0617c9 for some time, no engine faults that I've seen, that aren't already known. |
| 18:06 |
Krock |
at one point we've got to say it's enough for a release - because #7297 would be a backport candidate too |
| 18:06 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7297 -- Fix builtin inventory list crash when size = 0 by SmallJoker |
| 18:06 |
VanessaE |
sfan5: maybe just satisfy the current milestones/backports list? |
| 18:08 |
Krock |
since we're doing a 0.4.18 release anyway I don't see a reason to delay this release for much longer - in a month it's a year since 0.4.16 |
| 18:09 |
sfan5 |
VanessaE: I don't think there's much queued up for backporting |
| 18:09 |
sfan5 |
no idea about te milestone list |
| 18:09 |
sfan5 |
Krock: sounds good |
| 18:09 |
VanessaE |
sfan5: didn't think so. |
| 18:09 |
VanessaE |
(been a while since I looked at the list) |
| 18:10 |
Krock |
Only one of paramat's PRs is still in the "official" queue to backport if I see that correctly (#6746) |
| 18:10 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6746 -- Backport 0.4 by sfan5 |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
Okay. Hopefully more devs will be active in the later state of this meeting. |
| 18:16 |
Krock |
paramat, you've added the discussion point about the issue number or PR number in the merge commits |
| 18:16 |
Krock |
what's the particular issue with it? IMO it's helpful to see where the commit comes from - also to get to the discussion easily |
| 18:20 |
p_gimeno |
I didn't want to interfere with the meeting, but since there seems to be little activity, I wanted to note that it's possible (and perhaps desirable) to make #6898 backportable |
| 18:20 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/6898 -- Allow distinguishing mods by modpack by pgimeno |
| 18:21 |
Krock |
p_gimeno, for that it's an announced meeting it's quite dead, sadly. I'm not quite sure whether that may be backported. It's not backwards compatible once the map config is saved |
| 18:22 |
Krock |
but it's surely an important bugfix |
| 18:23 |
p_gimeno |
Krock: it can be made backwards compatible, by using numbers for the "master" directories (mods, game...) and then make 0.5 accept numbers but save names |
| 18:23 |
sfan5 |
that sounds "too major" to be backported |
| 18:25 |
Krock |
so hash the directory name and save it as number? well that idea isn't too bad but makes the file very hard to edit manually |
| 18:25 |
p_gimeno |
no no, just use 1.modname for the game mods (or 1.modpack.modname), 2.modname for the world mods, and 3.modname for the mods in the mods folder |
| 18:26 |
|
proller__ joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:27 |
p_gimeno |
(as opposed to game.modname, world.modname, mods.modname as it is now) |
| 18:27 |
Krock |
atoi("1.modname") translates to a non-zero value? I'm impressed |
| 18:27 |
p_gimeno |
yeah |
| 18:29 |
Krock |
it's still quite hacky so I'd prefer to keep it non-backwards-compatible in 0.5.0-dev only. Another dev might have a different opinion on this |
| 18:29 |
Krock |
first of all it needs a rebase and the a 2nd approval |
| 18:30 |
paramat |
oops sorry, back now |
| 18:30 |
Krock |
paramat, take your time. I'm glad you appeared :) |
| 18:31 |
|
hansili joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:31 |
paramat |
there are a few commits that need backporting in MTG |
| 18:32 |
paramat |
the cavegen fix is very important, i'd like it to be in 0.4.17 |
| 18:34 |
Krock |
paramat, what other commits need backporting? If they're not too important we can still release them in 0.4.18 |
| 18:36 |
paramat |
the cavegen fix is a todo in engine backporting |
| 18:37 |
Krock |
actually I meant the "a few commits that need backporting". So it's only the one you've posted there? |
| 18:38 |
paramat |
in MTG, the todos in backports are not recent, and the last backport in MTG was a long time ago, so i feel they should be backported for 0.4.17. however i can't do this, not good enough with git yet |
| 18:38 |
|
hansili left #minetest-dev |
| 18:38 |
Krock |
Ah, MTG. I see |
| 18:39 |
paramat |
sorry i'm not clear. the "few commits that need backporting" are MTG |
| 18:40 |
paramat |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/pull/1966 |
| 18:40 |
paramat |
"last updated: 2017-12-05" |
| 18:41 |
paramat |
so more really should be backported for 0.4.17 |
| 18:42 |
paramat |
erm, i don't feel strongly about issue number link in commits, but it seems wrong for a commit message because it is a github-specific link. commit messages should not be github-specific |
| 18:43 |
paramat |
although i realise the links are useful |
| 18:43 |
paramat |
they also make commit messages look messy |
| 18:44 |
paramat |
none of our old commit messages had links in them, before this new way of merging PRs |
| 18:44 |
paramat |
anyway maybe i'll need to open an issue for more to see |
| 18:45 |
Krock |
It's not a must-do but these eight additional characters " (#nnnn)" don't hurt |
| 18:47 |
Shara |
I kind of share paramat's view on this for whatever it's worth |
| 18:48 |
Krock |
if the links are useful to you too, then we should keep it. Short titles are advertised like everywhere too |
| 18:49 |
Krock |
Shara, in your opinion they clutter the titles? |
| 18:49 |
paramat |
i strip off the link in MTG, but maybe we can come to a decision sometime for the engine |
| 18:49 |
Shara |
Yea. I find them just pure messy and feel a commit should stand up fine on its own without needing that link. |
| 18:51 |
Krock |
It's just when you've got a commit, say, https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commit/bcd22fc34 . The fastest way to get to the PR discussion is the link. One click away |
| 18:51 |
paramat |
yes |
| 18:51 |
Shara |
I do get that viewpoint, just... messy :P |
| 18:51 |
Krock |
of course it is, but there's no other way to link them without a mess |
| 18:52 |
Krock |
Unless we want to pack the entire link into the description |
| 18:52 |
Krock |
which will cause more inconsistency anyway |
| 18:53 |
paramat |
for me the arguments against are perhaps strong enough to override the advantage :] |
| 18:53 |
Shara |
How often is it needed to go back to the discussion? That's probably what decides it |
| 18:54 |
paramat |
just don't link to the discussion, the discussion is a github-specific thing. if MT goes to another git site the links will be useless mess |
| 18:54 |
sfan5 |
I find it very useful when reviewing a change because I'm looking to solve a problem, often only reading the PR will reveal why something was done |
| 18:54 |
paramat |
it's always possible to navigate to the discussion from a commit with a little work |
| 18:55 |
sfan5 |
s/reviewing/triyng to understand/ |
| 18:55 |
sfan5 |
trying* .... |
| 18:55 |
Krock |
Shara, for my taste it's way too many times when I look up a PR this way, especially in the online git blame page |
| 18:55 |
Shara |
That's a good enough reason then |
| 18:56 |
paramat |
but anyway, i think consistency with commit history is enough to avoid them |
| 18:56 |
Krock |
sfan5, exactly. Also the PR discussion shows some ideas/alternatives or concerns which might be helpful later on |
| 18:56 |
sfan5 |
yeah |
| 18:57 |
Krock |
paramat, the commit history is already inconsistent with the prefixes, such as "Lua_api: foo" vs "Fix server.cpp issue" |
| 18:58 |
Krock |
it doesn't have to be perfect. it has to be understandable and helpful. |
| 18:59 |
paramat |
but, for the engine i'm happy to go with the decision. but in MTG the active devs are against :) |
| 19:00 |
Krock |
the PRs in MTG are quite overviewable, yes |
| 19:00 |
paramat |
so, in engine i'll leave them in from now on |
| 19:01 |
Krock |
leave them when they're inserted automatically and remove them in MTG if you want to do so |
| 19:01 |
paramat |
yeah |
| 19:02 |
paramat |
erm i guess 0.4.17 waits on rubenwardy 's spare time |
| 19:02 |
Krock |
after all we've got a ton more PRs on MTE so that deal seems fair |
| 19:02 |
Krock |
sfan5, any opinion on the MTG commit title format (automatic PR number insertion)? |
| 19:03 |
sfan5 |
prefer with PR number |
| 19:03 |
sfan5 |
but I wouldn't mind not having it |
| 19:03 |
Krock |
paramat, everyone who has push access to a repository can push to its PR branches |
| 19:03 |
paramat |
yes i know :) |
| 19:04 |
rubenwardy |
If you merge with github, it'll give you an actual link in the commit to the pr |
| 19:04 |
rubenwardy |
Iirc |
| 19:05 |
Shara |
Yes |
| 19:05 |
Shara |
I usually merge with github, so rely on that |
| 19:05 |
Shara |
example: https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/commit/b52ea3de159a135bad608360ce8d68c57bf64ce7 |
| 19:05 |
paramat |
but yes i agree to freezing 0.4.17 soonish, like 1-2 weeks? depends what is good for core devs |
| 19:05 |
Shara |
Link to commit isright at the top |
| 19:06 |
Shara |
is right* |
| 19:06 |
paramat |
but only announce on freeze, never before hehe |
| 19:07 |
paramat |
typical MT, it can't be rushed or planned |
| 19:07 |
Krock |
Shara, if you meant the PR/issue number: yes it's there. But look at these https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commit/574dab5c https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commit/43f98eb47 |
| 19:07 |
Krock |
^ GitHub doesn't always link them properly |
| 19:08 |
Krock |
ignore the first link, it was pushed directly |
| 19:09 |
Shara |
Hmm, haven't encountered it messing up before :) |
| 19:10 |
Krock |
paramat, we don't need more than a week. after the updated backports it's ready to be shipped |
| 19:10 |
Krock |
.. after a week |
| 19:18 |
paramat |
ok |
| 19:19 |
paramat |
so please can someone backport the MTG todo commits sometime? |
| 19:26 |
nerzhul |
why does 0.4.17 waits for rubenwardy ? |
| 19:27 |
rubenwardy |
no idea |
| 19:27 |
|
Cornelia joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:27 |
rubenwardy |
the only thing I'd like to do RE: 0.4.17 is run it on my server to find bugs |
| 19:27 |
rubenwardy |
which I'm already doing |
| 19:30 |
paramat |
oh i wrote that because ruben wrote 'this week is not good for me anyway' so it sounded like he wanted to have spare time for 0.4.17 |
| 19:47 |
Krock |
After trying to update the MTG backport branch using sed -r 's|[0-9]+ ([0-9a-f]+) .*|\1|gp' ../commits.txt | while read h; do git cherry-pick $h; if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then read -p "Done? "; fi done I noticed I would've been faster by cherry-picking the new ones manually |
| 19:48 |
Krock |
forgot to mention that I failed horribly anyway.. |
| 19:49 |
sfan5 |
yeah just do it manually, it's much better |
| 19:50 |
Krock |
is that sarcasm or serious? I'm asking because a command like this would've saved some time .. if it worked properly |
| 19:52 |
p_gimeno |
Krock: xargs FTW :) (with -L 1 here maybe) |
| 19:56 |
p_gimeno |
<Krock> first of all it needs a rebase and the a 2nd approval <-- When should I rebase? I asked this some time ago but got no response: Apr 03 19:59:20 <p_gimeno> on a different matter, I have a question. Should I rebase my PRs when I notice there's a conflict, or wait until being told to do so? |
| 19:57 |
sfan5 |
Krock: serious |
| 19:58 |
|
indiana joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:06 |
Krock |
p_gimeno, sadly I can't control the PR review speed either. However, sometimes testing code and results help to speed it up a little |
| 20:07 |
Krock |
So when will we release 0.4.17? Next week? In two weeks? |
| 20:09 |
Krock |
rubenwardy, to be fair your server is also a bit salted and doesn't run MTG - but it checks the engine quite good |
| 20:09 |
rubenwardy |
true |
| 20:09 |
rubenwardy |
salted? |
| 20:10 |
rdococ |
Ready-salted |
| 20:11 |
Krock |
rubenwardy, salted/dirty - including patches that aren't part of 0.4.x |
| 20:12 |
rubenwardy |
ah right |
| 20:14 |
Krock |
nerzhul, if you're still active: I've updated #7297 to address your comment. Is it good now? |
| 20:14 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7297 -- Fix builtin inventory list crash when size = 0 by SmallJoker |
| 20:16 |
p_gimeno |
Krock: um, the question was about when to rebase in case of conflicts, not about PR review speed |
| 20:16 |
p_gimeno |
should I go ahead and rebase it? |
| 20:17 |
Krock |
p_gimeno, oh yes, sure. Rebasing makes testing easier |
| 20:18 |
p_gimeno |
Krock: that's for sure, but obviously I don't want to be rebasing at every conflict while it isn't tested, hence my question of whether I should wait until told so. For example, if someone is willing to take a look at it, they can tell me to rebase. But rebasing just for the sake of it waiting for it to be looked into some day... is not fun. |
| 20:20 |
Krock |
p_gimeno, I know that it's tiring to rebase all the time, which happens to me sometimes aswell. However, inactive PRs are sometimes marked as "Neglect closure" - and can be easily revived by rebasing. Maybe after a while there are people willing to review |
| 20:21 |
p_gimeno |
ok, so I'm supposed to rebase it without being asked or anything, right? |
| 20:21 |
rubenwardy |
the modpack PR is on my todo list to review, it's just exam season for me :( |
| 20:28 |
|
dzho_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:30 |
Krock |
Merging #7297 in 5 minutes. Assuming nerzhul's change request is done as desired |
| 20:30 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/7297 -- Fix builtin inventory list crash when size = 0 by SmallJoker |
| 20:36 |
Krock |
merging... |
| 20:42 |
nerzhul |
Krock yeha |
| 21:03 |
paramat |
ahh thanks for doing MTG backport |
| 21:04 |
paramat |
i'll update the thread |
| 21:11 |
paramat |
perhaps we can freeze tomorrow |
| 21:12 |
Krock |
Honestly I hope so |
| 21:37 |
|
Wuzzy joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:11 |
|
longerstaff13-m joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:22 |
|
Wuzzy joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:29 |
|
Wuzzy joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:32 |
|
proller__ joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:55 |
|
lumberJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:19 |
|
Wuzzy2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:32 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:32 |
|
Wuzzy2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:48 |
|
Wuzzy2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:51 |
|
Wuzzy3 joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:54 |
|
Wuzzy2 joined #minetest-dev |
