Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by Ares »

After speaking with MasterBel about working together on BA 104 he informed me that Bluestone is currently in charge of the Balanced Annihilation Github
https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... nihilation which has been inactive for 17 months.

Although Floris and Shox stepped down from leadership capacity, BA's regular playerbase play regular 8v8s and enjoy updates like the recently released BA11. The player-base has also been growing thanks to the creation of new sites:
https://www.balancedannihilation.com/ and
https://www.reddit.com/r/BalancedAnnihilation/

In light of recent progress, Bluestone please transfer ownership of the BA github repo to someone who is an active part of the BA community (such as VBS or myself). This will improve transparency and collaboration and improve BA.
Last edited by Ares on 11 Aug 2020, 15:14, edited 1 time in total.
galileo
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Sep 2017, 19:16

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by galileo »

+1
tulipe
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 Mar 2018, 10:17

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by tulipe »

I'm not totally against this if this might improve the development of ba9 / ba11. But a copy of the old ba10.24 should be kept on github just in case. By creating a new repo for ba10.24 for example.
User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6193
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by FLOZi »

Just make a tag on the repo for 10.24?

e.g. https://github.com/spring/spring/commits/103.0
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1385
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by very_bad_soldier »

I am quite ok with Git I guess and I can offer to help you out maintaining the repo in case you are not very fluent with Git. E.g. I could structure the repo by moving the BA10 stuff to a separate branch and by providing a clean starting point on the master branch for BA9/11. This is of course pretty basic Git stuff and lots of people are able to do it I guess.

If possible I would just prefer to not be involved into any BAR vs BA drama.
dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1203
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by dansan »

I suggest to make one branch per major release (8, 9, 10, 11).
Create tags per minor release (9.12) and patch release (9.12.5).

Each branch can have different permissions. The repository owner can give push permissions to certain users for each branch. So it should be possible to have different maintainers per major release (if each major release is in a separate branch, as proposed above): https://docs.github.com/en/github/admin ... strictions

Which branch is configured to be the master branch is not important for development, but it is important for representation to potential developers. (When I'm interested in a project and look at the Github page and see only commits a few months or years old, then I consider the project dead. Seldom I take the time to check if progress is made in a "non-master" branch.)
The switch which branch is the one presented by default on Github ("master") can be done at any time, without any trouble, so don't bother discussing this now - it's not important atm. - it can be discussed later.

Side note: consider naming it "main branch" instead of "master branch" as a statement to show that you are aware of post-colonial, rasist continuity in modern language.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3666
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by Silentwings »

Ares wrote:to someone who is an active part of the BA community
Please give the github account name of at least one competent git(hub) user. For now I'll give commit rights, to a handful people if that would be helpful.

If you want to rearrange the repository that's up to you. I would ask that you keep BA10.xx with all of its commit history intact (moved into a branch if you prefer) for at least a few years and ideally forever - until we are well past the point that someone might want to access it.
Ares wrote: about working together on BA 104
If all stays well & active then, once the playing community is on 104 or is clearly getting there, I'll remove myself and transfer ownership.
galileo
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Sep 2017, 19:16

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by galileo »

This can be the occasion to migrate from Github to Gitlab or a self-hosted Gitlab (for FOSS philosophy consistence).
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1385
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by very_bad_soldier »

My github name is verybadsoldier.
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1385
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by very_bad_soldier »

I tagged like 40 releases and moved master to a BA10 branch. Current master now is identical to 9.46. Hell, the repo at time around 2016 is pretty much broken since someone commited symlinks containing local file system pathes and then updated those symlinks content (!!) with source code contents.
The actual releases at that time (around 9.46) must have been made from a dirty working since the repository state at that time cannot work in my opinion.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Request for BA repo transfer from Bluestone

Post by Ares »

My github name is Are-s
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Ares »

Merged to the same thread that it replied to (Silentwings).
Silentwings wrote: 25 Jul 2020, 08:32 once the playing community is on 104 or is clearly getting there, I'll remove myself and transfer ownership.
Please let Spring act like an independent game engine and return BA to the active community. It is mean spirited for yourself (Bluestone) as a lobby dev and engine advocate to be holding onto the Github of a game you don't play or develop. You are not impartial at all and there's an obvious conflict of interest.

Hitting the fork button is not the same, I'm developing BA and have put a lot of effort into improving BA ecosystem.

BA's goal is engine 105, there is no need to use the repo as a bargaining tool. BA should be allowed to chose its future like every other Spring game instead of constantly being banned and held to ransom.

Please transfer Github to VBS or myself
https://github.com/verybadsoldier
https://github.com/Are-s
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3666
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Silentwings »

(1) VBS already has full access to the repo and has committed to it, as you would know if you had bothered to check https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... its/master
(2) You were also sent the same invitation as VBS, both sent 15 days ago, offering you the same level of access. It seems that you forgot to accept it and it timed out after 7 days. I have just sent the same invitation again. I would prefer not to send it a third time.
Image
You are not impartial at all and there's an obvious conflict of interest.
Grow up. I spent 4 years of my life putting serious effort into BA. This was a vastly greater time investment than anything else I've done in Spring. Since I was (not very willingly) designated as "only ex-dev left prepared to put minimal effort into identifying a new dev", you'll have to live with that. You have full access so make commits, make releases, show that yourself/yourselves can maintain BA.
Hitting the fork button is not the same
And, thanks to me, you don't have too....
(in fact, you don't have to anyway... https://docs.github.com/en/github/impor ... b-importer)
(Bluestone) as a lobby dev
This part is fiction. Server, yes, but lobbies, no.
engine advocate
BA's goal is engine
If so I recommend aiming for 104, skipping straight to 105 is not realistic, in part because it doesn't actually exist (yet). However I'm glad to hope that we have something in common.
Attachments
Untitled2.png
(30.14 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Ares »

Yes transfer ownership to VBS he has proved a capable developer and active member of the BA community. Here is how to transfer a repo: https://docs.github.com/en/github/admin ... er-account

Image

You can keep your commit access and help the project move to the new 105 engine if you like.
Attachments
member.png
(46.37 KiB) Not downloaded yet
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1385
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by very_bad_soldier »

I would like to have rights to configure stuff like protected branches etc. I won't act in any "political" way in this matter towards one side or the other. At best I will also remove myself when I can be of no help anymore.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3666
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Silentwings »

I've already made it clear where I think the bar for giving away the old repo unconditionally should be
Silentwings wrote: 25 Jul 2020, 08:32 once the playing community is on 104 or is clearly getting there, I'll remove myself and transfer ownership.
I don't think it is met at the moment, or at least if it is I have no evidence of it. If you prefer to go for 105 instead, fine, but I don't expect as much as that, I doubt its practical. You've said several times that you aim for one or other. Afaics there's no rush to get there, you could first maintain "old BA" for some time.

As said - you have full access so make commits, make releases, show that you can maintain BA. I don't know if you can/will do anything at all. If not, perhaps one day someone else takes the opportunity.
very_bad_soldier wrote:I would like to have rights to configure stuff like protected branches etc.
There aren't any protected branches in this repo, and I think you already have all member permissions that are possible on github. What is it you want to do here?
User avatar
very_bad_soldier
Posts: 1385
Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by very_bad_soldier »

Yes, but I want to be able to protect branches.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3666
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Silentwings »

Ok, can't currently see where to give that, I'll look into it. Edit: should work now.
Ares
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 375
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Ares »

Silentwings wrote: 10 Aug 2020, 20:42 Since I was (not very willingly) designated as "only ex-dev left prepared to put minimal effort into identifying a new dev", you'll have to live with that.
You were a good Balanced Annihilation developer in 2016 however, you haven't been an active player or dev for years and you were transferred the repo as a result of BA10 drama temporarily, not because you were leading the BA community. I am the current Balanced Annihilation Developer. Floris and Shox both acknowledge BA community wants to move on now, you are the only person refusing.

In your own words you are an ex-developer and Spring moderator, I think you would struggle to find a single person who agrees that you are the leader of BA right now. I understand you have to push your engine agenda onto BA, however we are trying to repair a community right now that has been damaged from years of pointless dramas like this. I have told you my desire for BA to move to 105, this is what you want.

You set unmeetable demands that go against the will of the community and were endlessly discussed 2 years ago. You are doing the equivalent of granting yourself indefinate ownership of a project that you no longer have anything to do with. The best outcome for BA and for Spring is obviously to let BA move forwards by transferring ownership on a good faith basis.
Last edited by Ares on 11 Aug 2020, 13:23, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3666
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: BA should not be owned by engine

Post by Silentwings »

As said, if in the long run you want to own the repo that BA9/10 created, all I'm hoping for is visible progress towards your own stated goal. Ill-informed personal attacks on me and my motives won't get you anywhere. It is usually a bad idea to try that on someone who you're trying to persuade to have good faith in you.

You can commit. You can make BA releases. You could have started 15 days ago. If you can do it, get going!
Locked

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”