| 01:04.00 | TD-Linux | whoaaaa bzflag is moving to github? is because of the sf downloader drama? |
| 01:04.31 | blast007 | can't remember if that was even a thing when we started moving |
| 01:04.46 | blast007 | I believe it was more because of the new SF platform being crap |
| 01:05.31 | BulletCatcher | The best reason we had for moving was that GitHub has better tools for issue tracking. |
| 01:45.59 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@cl220118.callutheran.edu) |
| 01:46.00 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@unaffiliated/jeffm2501) |
| 01:46.00 | *** mode/#bzflag [+v JeffM] by ChanServ |
| 01:56.33 | JeffM | BulletCatcher, is there a way to rename a branch in GIT? |
| 01:59.40 | JeffM | or delete one? |
| 02:01.16 | *** join/#bzflag apeman (~Victor@222-155-154-108.jetstream.xtra.co.nz) |
| 02:02.35 | apeman | if CTF cap message and match gameover message are both sent by TCP/IP, does that mean that i am guaranteed to receive them in the same order that they were generated by bzfs? |
| 02:03.18 | JeffM | yes |
| 02:03.28 | JeffM | that's what TCP does |
| 02:35.08 | *** part/#bzflag apeman (~Victor@222-155-154-108.jetstream.xtra.co.nz) |
| 02:40.20 | *** join/#bzflag mebigfatguy (~dave@128.177.74.185) |
| 02:49.55 | allejo | JeffM, you have to delete the branch and recreate it, you can't rename it |
| 02:50.12 | JeffM | how do you delete? |
| 02:51.01 | allejo | git branch -m master master-old |
| 02:51.03 | allejo | git push remote :master # delete master |
| 02:51.03 | allejo | git push remote master-old # create master-old on remote |
| 02:51.03 | allejo | git checkout -b master some-ref # create a new local master |
| 02:51.03 | allejo | git push remote master # create master on remote |
| 02:51.07 | allejo | it's a process :x |
| 02:51.30 | blast007 | at least it isn't complicated |
| 02:51.57 | allejo | i think there's another way but that's what i had in my notes |
| 02:52.01 | JeffM | wow |
| 02:53.28 | allejo | if you have to rename master, github will nag you because you have to change the default branch |
| 02:54.14 | allejo | i.e. you won't be able to change the default branch (to v2_4_x or whatever) through github settings before you can delete master |
| 03:04.21 | allejo | oh here's a shorter one |
| 03:04.22 | allejo | git branch -m branch-to-remove new-branch |
| 03:04.22 | allejo | git push origin :branch-to-remove |
| 03:04.22 | allejo | git push -u origin new-branch |
| 04:23.56 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@cpe-23-241-222-73.socal.res.rr.com) |
| 04:23.57 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@unaffiliated/jeffm2501) |
| 04:23.57 | *** mode/#bzflag [+v JeffM] by ChanServ |
| 04:29.23 | Constitution | has there been any discussion on whether/when to adopt SDL 2? |
| 04:30.21 | JeffM | it was mentioned once or twice |
| 04:33.03 | JeffM | best would be to split up the platform system into more subsustems that can be mixed and matched as needed |
| 04:37.30 | Constitution | okay? there appears to be a bug somewhere outside of our code (either SDL or OS X) on 10.9 that can prevent the client from launching the first time |
| 04:37.42 | JeffM | I've seen |
| 04:38.04 | JeffM | it's in OSX, it dies in the intel driver |
| 04:38.39 | Constitution | I guess SDL 2 is unlikely to help there, then |
| 04:38.48 | JeffM | probalby |
| 04:40.20 | JeffM | be simpler to just remove the gamma check on OSX |
| 04:45.43 | Constitution | what is it with Apple and intel drivers lately? |
| 04:46.19 | JeffM | intel video cards don't run on iphones |
| 04:47.21 | Delusional | woop, i got a mac 10.9 bug too. screenshot crashes the client |
| 04:47.56 | JeffM | Boot Camp! |
| 04:49.07 | JeffM | does it give you a dump? |
| 04:51.27 | Delusional | screen goes black, except for the cursor, which still moves.... stays black too, I waited for a full minute... then used the force-quit key combo. |
| 04:51.43 | JeffM | does it work if you run in a window? |
| 04:52.50 | Delusional | ah... it drops into the dock |
| 04:53.15 | Delusional | no indication in the console that a screenie was taken |
| 04:53.16 | JeffM | is the screenshot key something else in OSX now? |
| 04:53.32 | Delusional | thats what im thinking |
| 04:53.36 | JeffM | if you set the screnshot key to something else does it work? |
| 04:54.42 | Constitution | are you sure you're hitting f5 and not f4? |
| 04:54.59 | Delusional | the bug is in my head |
| 04:55.16 | Delusional | i have them switched somehow in the prefs |
| 04:56.14 | *** join/#bzflag ruskie (ruskie@sourcemage/mage/ruskie) |
| 04:56.16 | Delusional | alright... new bug... iconify doesnt work from fullscreen |
| 04:56.38 | *** join/#bzflag cz3141 (cz3141@gateway/shell/devio.us/x-azsajbzbrpiyjprn) |
| 04:57.39 | Constitution | not new, but yes |
| 05:47.18 | BulletCatcher | Renaming a branch in a Git repo is easy enough by itself. |
| 05:47.23 | BulletCatcher | What makes it complicated is that it must also be manually done in *each* clone that may be pushed to the central repo. |
| 05:47.26 | BulletCatcher | There is no way to reliably ensure that there isn't some clone in which the branch was not renamed, sitting there like a timebomb waiting to re-push the old branch name back to the central repo. |
| 05:47.30 | BulletCatcher | Because of that uncertainty I prefer a scheme in which branches never have to be renamed even if they are abandoned. |
| 05:47.51 | JeffM | BulletCatcher, I was asking for my own repo :) |
| 05:48.28 | BulletCatcher | :-) |
| 05:48.54 | BulletCatcher | Then allejo's steps should get the job done. |
| 05:49.40 | BulletCatcher | Anyway, I do think we should choose branch names for BZFlag that don't need to be renamed. |
| 05:50.21 | BulletCatcher | That leads to names like "v2_4_x" instead of "master" or "trunk". |
| 05:50.25 | JeffM | well if it was named development, it'd be branched to 2.6. 2.8 ,etc, no rename |
| 05:50.49 | JeffM | you would make a new branch when it was release time |
| 05:51.24 | BulletCatcher | What if the development branch were to be abandoned? |
| 05:51.43 | BulletCatcher | That's happend 2 or 3 times already. |
| 05:51.46 | JeffM | sure |
| 05:51.52 | JeffM | it's more rare then releases |
| 05:52.19 | JeffM | realy you sould snap off an archive branch then backmerge in the new branch |
| 05:52.28 | JeffM | then we use code names |
| 05:52.34 | JeffM | I just don't like using numbers |
| 05:52.49 | JeffM | so 2.6 becomes tacobeam and we call it 2.6 when it's time |
| 05:53.04 | JeffM | with numbers, what if a number gets abandoned ? |
| 05:53.42 | JeffM | so if 2.6 dies, do we take 2.4 and have to branch it to 2.8 and loose the name 2.6 because we screwed up? |
| 05:54.55 | BulletCatcher | If we call the current breaking branch 2.5 instead of v2_6_x, that will match the actual version number. |
| 05:54.57 | BulletCatcher | Then if/when 2.6 comes out we start a new 2.6 branch off that (and the 2.5 branch would just stop). |
| 05:55.42 | BulletCatcher | If we abandon the 2.5 branch without a release then it would make sense to skip forward to 2.7. |
| 05:55.57 | JeffM | that sucks for end users |
| 05:56.36 | BulletCatcher | "What happened to 2.6?" "We skipped it." |
| 05:56.47 | JeffM | "again" |
| 05:57.23 | JeffM | well 2.5_dev would be better then 2.6 |
| 05:57.28 | JeffM | then snap it to 2.6 |
| 06:00.00 | BulletCatcher | I've been meaning to draw a graph that shows our actual branch history. |
| 06:00.01 | BulletCatcher | I'll add some possible futures to show how it could work. |
| 06:08.36 | allejo | so... would bz go from 2.8 to 3.2? |
| 06:09.03 | BulletCatcher | We could have a 2.10 if we wanted. |
| 06:09.25 | allejo | ohhh totally forgot about double digits |
| 06:10.02 | JeffM | yup |
| 06:12.59 | JeffM | but at that point I'd hope we had enough features to make a 3.0 |
| 11:16.17 | *** join/#bzflag Delusional (~delusiona@unaffiliated/delusional) |
| 14:55.04 | *** join/#bzflag Guest746 (ba963447@gateway/web/freenode/ip.186.150.52.71) |
| 14:55.08 | Guest746 | hi |
| 14:55.32 | Guest746 | planet mofo is lagging why? |
| 14:59.44 | BulletCatcher | The people in the ##PlanetMofo channel are more likely to be able to answer that question than we are. |
| 15:05.51 | BulletCatcher | attention span < lag time |
| 15:08.47 | blast007 | or maybe his IRC connection lagged out ;) |
| 15:34.38 | kierra | iirc, that is the dominican tanker that cheated on mofo a while back, and threatened to ddos |
| 15:34.57 | kierra | maybe the new changes are keeping him out :D |
| 16:03.07 | *** join/#bzflag unclelightning (~chatzilla@pool-64-222-254-112.port.east.myfairpoint.net) |
| 16:30.57 | *** join/#bzflag TimRiker (~TimRiker@bzflag/projectlead/TimRiker) |
| 16:30.57 | *** mode/#bzflag [+o TimRiker] by ChanServ |
| 16:42.51 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@unaffiliated/jeffm2501) |
| 16:42.52 | *** mode/#bzflag [+v JeffM] by ChanServ |
| 17:22.16 | *** join/#bzflag cz3141 (cz3141@gateway/shell/devio.us/x-galnhfmjpclydqmp) |
| 17:48.49 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM_ (~JeffM@107-209-61-105.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) |
| 17:57.28 | BulletCatcher | http://pastebin.com/yuWxuGiP shows a concise BZFlag historical delvelopment tree in lovely ASCII art. |
| 17:59.42 | BulletCatcher | It may be wortwhile to put that on a wiki page. |
| 18:08.22 | BulletCatcher | These branch names: 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 2.0 2.1 2.99 2.3 2.4 2.5, would cover that history well. |
| 18:10.02 | JeffM_ | hakuna matata! |
| 18:10.09 | BulletCatcher | The 2.5 branch would end at the beginning of the 2.6 branch if it is released. |
| 18:10.56 | JeffM_ | looks good, other then I'd diferentiate between end of life branches and actual abandonments |
| 18:11.09 | JeffM_ | 1.10.10 is the end of life for 1.10.x |
| 18:11.13 | JeffM_ | it was planed |
| 18:11.29 | JeffM_ | I think |
| 18:11.47 | BulletCatcher | Planned or not, it was abandoned. :-) |
| 18:12.06 | JeffM_ | sure then by that reasoning everything gets abandoned |
| 18:12.13 | BulletCatcher | yes |
| 18:12.22 | JeffM_ | and I think there is value in noting if it was a good or bad abandonment |
| 18:12.31 | BulletCatcher | "Computer programs are never finished, merely abandoned." |
| 18:12.54 | JeffM_ | abanoned sounds bad |
| 18:13.03 | JeffM_ | and it's not always bad |
| 18:13.18 | BulletCatcher | "concluded"? |
| 18:13.24 | JeffM_ | windows me was abandoned by MS and that was good :) |
| 18:13.32 | JeffM_ | yes, I like that much much better |
| 18:14.01 | JeffM_ | 1.8 and 2.99 were truely abandoned |
| 18:14.10 | BulletCatcher | Do you want to code that distinction into the branch name? |
| 18:14.19 | JeffM_ | I'd be up for that |
| 18:15.18 | JeffM_ | with the concluded branches you can make the assumption that features it has are included in future versions, or if they were removed they were pulled for a reason, with the abadnoned code, you can not make that assumption |
| 18:15.48 | JeffM_ | abandoned features may have been ported but you have to make the effort to check |
| 18:15.53 | JeffM_ | thats why I think there is value in noting it |
| 18:16.21 | BulletCatcher | Putting that into the branch name is easy enough to do retroactively, but it would require a (problematic) rename in the future. |
| 18:16.37 | JeffM_ | I'd be fine if it was noted in a document too |
| 18:16.55 | JeffM_ | it's not as important as like noting a release or anything |
| 18:17.29 | JeffM_ | goes to hook up atan2 |
| 18:20.01 | *** join/#bzflag XndrK (~Kids@184.79.202.30) |
| 18:20.36 | *** part/#bzflag XndrK (~Kids@184.79.202.30) |
| 19:06.35 | blast007 | or instead of concluded, what about "superseded"? |
| 19:20.41 | blast007 | I don't really think we need to add any special label to the abandoned branches. Just seems like unnecessary work. |
| 19:34.35 | *** join/#bzflag alpha1-2 (~nb_j@190.137.6.200) |
| 19:56.43 | *** join/#bzflag unclelightning (~chatzilla@pool-64-222-254-112.port.east.myfairpoint.net) |
| 21:12.35 | *** join/#bzflag khonkhortisan (~kyle@c-50-132-81-139.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) |
| 21:15.57 | *** join/#bzflag dngor (abuse@p3m/dngor) |
| 22:09.12 | *** join/#bzflag [dmp] (~dennis@users.d75.net) |
| 22:09.13 | *** join/#bzflag [dmp] (~dennis@unaffiliated/dmp/x-546784) |
| 22:20.31 | *** join/#bzflag tofu_ (~sean@66-118-151-70.static.sagonet.net) |
| 23:03.06 | *** join/#bzflag alpha1-2 (~nb_j@190.137.6.200) |
| 23:54.18 | *** join/#bzflag Pimpinella (~frank@gondolin.pimpi.org) |