| 00:00.02 | allejo | 2.6 is dead? |
| 00:00.15 | JeffM | if it was not why would you not want it the default? |
| 00:00.56 | allejo | is confused |
| 00:01.17 | JeffM | don't we want new code in 2.6 branch, if so it should be the default |
| 00:01.36 | blast007 | < BulletCatcher> Past experience shows that we often have 2 open branches (current release and future incompatible), and this naming convention keeps us from having to change "trunk" or "master" from one to the other. |
| 00:02.09 | JeffM | blast007, didn't change names, just defaulted what one shows on the webpage when you don't specify a branch |
| 00:02.11 | blast007 | JeffM: we want 2.4 compatible code possibly put into 2.4 and breaking stuff into 2.6 |
| 00:02.26 | blast007 | and again, I think it should stick to master |
| 00:02.39 | JeffM | so people have to read a document then select a branch? |
| 00:02.48 | JeffM | that seems lame |
| 00:02.49 | blast007 | yep |
| 00:02.55 | blast007 | they can do it in a single command |
| 00:02.57 | blast007 | ~bzgit |
| 00:02.58 | infobot | [bzgit] git clone --branch v2_4_x https://github.com/BZFlag-Dev/bzflag-import-3.git bzflag |
| 00:02.58 | JeffM | but whatevs |
| 00:03.07 | JeffM | and when they don't come from here :) |
| 00:03.47 | blast007 | well, where would they get it from? our wiki? we can have the command there. the github page? it shows the readme on the initial code page. |
| 00:03.54 | JeffM | I put it back, so there is your answer allejo "reasons" |
| 00:04.10 | JeffM | google |
| 00:04.34 | allejo | lol |
| 00:04.41 | blast007 | google doesn't tell them to clone our repo, it just would link to our github page or wiki |
| 00:05.01 | JeffM | it doesn't really matter |
| 00:05.21 | JeffM | #everythingisawsome |
| 00:05.53 | blast007 | if we do it differently, we'd just not have a v2_6_x branch until we actually release 2.6 and then just have 'master' be the 2.5.x code |
| 00:06.27 | blast007 | I'd be in favor of that method for the next import. |
| 00:06.28 | JeffM | yeah the 2.6.x is wierd, but appreantly renames are evil |
| 00:06.40 | JeffM | tags are so mainstream |
| 00:06.45 | allejo | wouldn't it make more sense to have the master branch be 2.4 and then there be a "development" branch be 2.5? |
| 00:07.03 | blast007 | allejo: isn't 'master' usually bleeding edge code? |
| 00:07.09 | allejo | yea |
| 00:07.22 | blast007 | so 2.5 would be bleeding edge, 2.4 would be a branch |
| 00:07.31 | JeffM | yeah 2.4 is like "stable" |
| 00:07.35 | allejo | once 2.6 development starts actively we merge developer into master but before that move master into 2.4 |
| 00:07.48 | JeffM | then why have 2.6 at all? |
| 00:08.04 | JeffM | it's not like it waiting on anything |
| 00:08.12 | JeffM | you all just seem to want to putter in 2.4 |
| 00:08.21 | JeffM | so that tells me 2.6 aint' ready to take off |
| 00:08.32 | JeffM | and you want a 2.4.x maintenance release |
| 00:08.50 | allejo | well the changes i'm making to 2.4 aren't protocol breaking and shouldn't be delayed until 2.6 |
| 00:09.09 | JeffM | but it'll never be released if we don't do another 2.4.x |
| 00:09.20 | JeffM | so techincaly it can stay as a patch |
| 00:09.27 | allejo | true |
| 00:09.44 | allejo | so one more maintenance release for 2.4 and move on to 2.6 dev? |
| 00:09.48 | JeffM | if this was a company, I'd have you work in 2.5.x and then maintain a 2.4.x backports branch for things that can work |
| 00:10.04 | JeffM | the main goal would be 2.6 but going back for a few people who don't mind building would be ok |
| 00:10.16 | JeffM | oh I don't think we should do another 2.4 |
| 00:10.30 | JeffM | that'd be silly given our timeframes |
| 00:10.41 | JeffM | that's saying, "Add another year or 2" |
| 00:10.55 | JeffM | I'm just saing what it sounds like you are wanting to me |
| 00:11.01 | JeffM | we don't have enough for a 2.4.6 |
| 00:11.07 | JeffM | not by a longshot |
| 00:11.08 | allejo | 2.4.4* |
| 00:11.11 | JeffM | whatever |
| 00:11.37 | allejo | so continue development on the 2.6 branch and backport changes to 2.4? |
| 00:11.47 | JeffM | that would be the best way to move forward |
| 00:12.01 | JeffM | hence why my comment would be to make 2.5.x "default" for new commits |
| 00:12.11 | JeffM | as it is where development shoud be going |
| 00:12.25 | allejo | ohh now i see |
| 00:12.38 | allejo | would make sense to me |
| 00:12.49 | JeffM | and since ANYTHING done in the 2.4.x has to be duplicated in dev, then why not start with dev and backport a subset |
| 00:13.06 | JeffM | it sets the right "tone" for moving forward |
| 00:13.14 | JeffM | otherwise you ask "what is 2.6 for?" |
| 00:13.32 | JeffM | nobody seems willing to work on the features for it, so maybe it is stillborn, our last one was |
| 00:14.59 | allejo | seems logical |
| 00:15.15 | blast007 | < BulletCatcher> Changes that are appropriate for both 2.4 and 2.6 should be put on the v2_4_x branch, which will be merged as needed onto the v2_6_x branch to keep them in sync. |
| 00:15.36 | blast007 | < BulletCatcher> Just be sure to choose the branch (v2_4_x or v2_6_x) wisely, because it is efficient and trivial to merge changes from 2.4 onto 2.6 but not the reverse. |
| 00:15.44 | JeffM | how much longer are we going to have this import crap? |
| 00:15.48 | JeffM | another 6 months? |
| 00:16.05 | allejo | what's left with to do with the import? |
| 00:16.19 | JeffM | sacrafice the goat I guess |
| 00:17.05 | JeffM | it's been 7 months already...... |
| 00:18.08 | allejo | I think bc mentioned there was still something to do with the imports can't remember what |
| 00:19.30 | allejo | what's the difference between v2_99_net_branch and v2_99_shot_branch? |
| 00:19.43 | JeffM | they are different SOC projects |
| 00:21.04 | allejo | was one of those branches the "official" 2.99 branch? |
| 00:21.08 | JeffM | no |
| 00:22.29 | JeffM | https://sourceforge.net/p/bzflag/code/HEAD/tree/branches/experimental/v2_99continuing/ |
| 00:22.32 | JeffM | that was it in svn |
| 00:22.42 | JeffM | don't know where it landed in git |
| 00:23.16 | allejo | oh fun |
| 00:23.23 | allejo | browses |
| 00:24.03 | trepan | it's under the "experimental" branch |
| 00:24.24 | allejo | https://github.com/BZFlag-Dev/bzflag-import-3/tree/experimental/v2_99continuing |
| 00:24.28 | allejo | there it is! |
| 00:44.34 | *** join/#bzflag SpazzyMcGee_ (~SpazzyMcG@149.241.115.237) |
| 00:53.18 | *** join/#bzflag SpazzyMcGee_ (~SpazzyMcG@149.241.97.224) |
| 00:59.59 | *** join/#bzflag Not-001 (~notifico@198.199.82.216) |
| 01:00.00 | Not-001 | [02bzflag-import-3] 07allejo pushed 032 commits to 03v2_4_x [+0/-0/±3] 13http://git.io/Lc2c9w |
| 01:00.01 | Not-001 | [02bzflag-import-3] 07allejo 03d86e5a6 - Added bz_eGameResumeEvent and bz_eGamePauseEvent to the API |
| 01:00.02 | Not-001 | [02bzflag-import-3] 07allejo 035ae409e - Merge branch 'v2_4_x' of github.com:BZFlag-Dev/bzflag-import-3 into v2_4_x |
| 01:07.02 | *** join/#bzflag SpazzyMcGee_ (~SpazzyMcG@149.241.98.4) |
| 01:08.50 | blast007 | so does merging only show it as a single combined changeset and not as all the individual changesets? |
| 01:12.17 | allejo | are you talking about my commit? if so, then that was an accident on my part. it's not merged to 2.6 though |
| 01:19.36 | blast007 | oh, that was 2.4 into 2.4 :) |
| 01:20.47 | *** join/#bzflag SpazzyMcGee_ (~SpazzyMcG@78-86-48-140.zone2.bethere.co.uk) |
| 01:25.24 | *** join/#bzflag swigg_ (~swigg@97-82-254-35.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com) |
| 01:42.09 | *** join/#bzflag swigg (~swigg@bzflag/player/Swigg) |
| 03:01.18 | *** join/#bzflag ashvala (~ashvala@unaffiliated/ashvala) |
| 06:28.28 | rob1n | blast007, is it just me or is the bzflag github a complete mess? |
| 06:30.07 | rob1n | it's like it's trying to force a SVN-centric workflow on the git model of branches and tags |
| 07:56.10 | *** join/#bzflag McYukon (~McYukon@198.143.187.178) |
| 08:31.37 | allejo | rob1n was correct *cough* |
| 08:47.35 | allejo | either my commit today broke the build (and I don't possibly see how since I only made additions) or I somehow borked my plugin |
| 08:47.53 | allejo | weeeeee.... |
| 11:43.39 | brad | did anyone see this? http://www.virtual.wf/bzflag/aa7012dfe4ebde2e/ |
| 13:08.35 | *** join/#bzflag _lmnop (~lmnop@24-134-41-57-dynip.superkabel.de) |
| 13:09.05 | *** join/#bzflag I_Died_Once (~I_Died_On@unaffiliated/idiedonce/x-1828535) |
| 13:17.51 | blast007 | brad: is it just me, or is that kinda slow? |
| 13:19.03 | brad | oh its very slow (and lacking a lot) but nice to see it being attempted at least |
| 13:20.44 | brad | when you drive into a pyramid you seem to be launched into the air |
| 13:22.08 | blast007 | oh god, all I see is sky |
| 13:25.09 | brad | are you on it now? |
| 13:25.21 | brad | want to see if multiplayer works :p |
| 13:26.22 | blast007 | I shot someone named 'gg' - was that you? |
| 13:26.29 | brad | yes |
| 13:26.36 | blast007 | :) |
| 13:26.38 | blast007 | I win! |
| 13:26.41 | brad | I can't see any others on scoreboard |
| 13:26.47 | blast007 | I left |
| 13:27.02 | brad | that'd be why ;) |
| 13:27.18 | blast007 | wonder if the LGPL 2.1 textures/sounds are even compatible with that engine, which is Apache 2.0 |
| 13:27.42 | blast007 | "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2", so I wonder if that applies to LGPL 2.1 as well |
| 14:44.38 | kierra | cant use mouse on there |
| 15:31.19 | *** join/#bzflag AAA_awright (~aaa@2001:41d0:1:d632::1) |
| 16:44.46 | *** join/#bzflag TimRiker (~TimRiker@bzflag/projectlead/TimRiker) |
| 16:44.46 | *** mode/#bzflag [+o TimRiker] by ChanServ |
| 17:29.27 | *** join/#bzflag JeffM (~JeffM@12.167.61.62) |
| 18:20.15 | *** join/#bzflag Pimpinella (~frank@gondolin.pimpi.org) |
| 19:34.37 | *** join/#bzflag Constitution (~josh@bzflag/developer/Constitution) |
| 20:02.09 | *** join/#bzflag brad (~brad@unaffiliated/brad) |
| 20:03.16 | *** join/#bzflag EvilJStoker (jstoker@unaffiliated/jstoker) |
| 20:19.55 | *** join/#bzflag ashvala (~ashvala@unaffiliated/ashvala) |
| 20:51.41 | *** join/#bzflag rob1n (~rob1n@unaffiliated/rob1n) |
| 22:09.18 | *** join/#bzflag blast007 (~blast007@bzflag/developer/Blast) |
| 23:57.16 | *** join/#bzflag Delusional (~delusiona@pool-98-111-215-152.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net) |
| 23:57.16 | *** join/#bzflag Delusional (~delusiona@unaffiliated/delusional) |