Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Archive of lobby developer discussions

Moderators: Moderators, Lobby Developers

User avatar
danil_kalina
Posts: 505
Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21

Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by danil_kalina » 19 Mar 2012, 08:53

Date: 18 March 2012
Present:
[list]
[*][1uP]CarRepairer
[*][CN]Zydox
[*][PinK]halcyon
[*][teh]decay
[*]_koshi_
[*]a1983
[*]bibim_
[*]BrainDamage
[*]Clogger
[*]Licho[0K]
[*]Malina[/list]

Agenda
[list]
[*]SpringLobby non-compliance with multi-engine protocol (and DisableVersionCheck config)
[*]SpringLobby non-compliance with full engine version name in server data

[*]Vote for account recovery stuff

[*]https://github.com/spring/LobbyProtocol/compare/email

[*]Add ueberserver stuff to protocol?

[*]SAYBATTLEPRIVATE & SAYBATTLEPRIVATEEX

[*]"et" compat flag (send NOCHANNELTOPIC on join if channel has no topic, used only by IRC bridge)

[*]Decoupling account control from lobbyserver (for integration with external stuff like desura, fb, zk etc)

[*]Cleaning old accounts

[*]Server development/documentation / what was done this week

[*]Custom properties[/list]

_koshi_ bibim_, BrainDamage, Malina, a1983 [1uP]CarRepairer: all awake?
[CN]Zydox I have an issue with the e-mail proposal...
Malina +
[CN]Zydox In it's current state, it says nothing how to handle multiple accounts with the same e-mail...
_koshi_ hold it
22:43
[PinK]halcyon :-)
[CN]Zydox forever or until the meeting begins?
_koshi_ just a little while longer :P
BrainDamage somehow, the meeting time is always unfortunate for me since it happends around the time i eat
22:46
_koshi_ alright, we'll assume no one else is coming / being really late for now
---------------------------- meeting begin
hi
minutes volunteer please
[CN]Zydox Hello
[PinK]halcyon hey
22:51
_koshi_ I guess we need a round-robin script for assigning one?
[PinK]halcyon Malina?
Licho[0K] hi
Malina what
Licho[0K] sup
[PinK]halcyon Malina would you like to volunteer for meeting minutes
Malina of course I do, I always want :D
_koshi_ good, thanks
moving on
springlobby non-compliance with multi-engine protocol (and DisableVersionCheck config)
Licho added that
Licho[0K] yeah there is multi engine lobby protocol change being in place for several months
could you please implement it or at least disableversioncheck by default?
_koshi_ there really isn't
I myself learned of that undocumented stuff in uberserver last week
Licho[0K] reallyI thought you are all aware
aegis told us about that
_koshi_ assuming you refer to openbattleex?
[PinK]halcyon I oppose this, run another server for other engines
Licho[0K] i implemented this after aegis told me
yes openbattleex
its SAME engine
nub
just different verison
[PinK]halcyon version too
Licho[0K] i oppose halcyon being here
[PinK]halcyon you're so annoying licho
[CN]Zydox why?
[PinK]halcyon stop with this shit
Licho[0K] he opposes stuff
[CN]Zydox that's not always a bad thing, imho
[PinK]halcyon it's my right
_koshi_ good job guys you held together a full 3 minutes
[PinK]halcyon it's not my fault..licho does this every meeting
Licho[0K] anyway the stuff is in place and there are 2 issues atm:
1) on windows disableversioncheck is on and it lets people with 87 join dev build -> they desync
2) on windows disableversioncheck is default off and it prevents people with correct devbuild from joining game
*2) on linux
_koshi_ not true, it's default off everywhere
Licho[0K] well default off you mean what
on linux they cannot join even with correct build
because it incorrectly detects mismatch
they have disableversioncheck=0 in their config
and have to manualyl replace it
ideal option would be of course to implement support for multi engine
_koshi_ disableversioncheck =0 --> version is checked
Licho[0K] yes on linux
oh i see it now
_koshi_ no, everywhere
Malina you have to check twice
Licho[0K] it does not check against battle engine version
it checks against server engine version
_koshi_ ofc
[PinK]halcyon pls, host another server for other versions
Licho[0K] thats why on windows it lets people desync
and on linux it forbids them from playing :)
_koshi_ that happens if this shit is not in prtocol and you do whatever
Licho[0K] it is in protocol
ask aegis
its been there for months
i was using title hack before
some people wer eunhappy so he implemented this
it is some extra compat flag
could you implement this or at least disable verison check by default please?
_koshi_ when I say protocol i mean the protocl description, not some uberserver source file
[PinK]halcyon it's not just affecting uberserver..there's springls too
Licho[0K] he generates docs from that source file somehow
_koshi_ don't care
[PinK]halcyon ok, can we have a vote?
[1uP]CarRepairer abstain
Licho[0K] vote on what
the feature exists
im just asking koshi to implement it :)
yes it should be documented
[PinK]halcyon doesn't exist on springls
Licho[0K] whats springls?
[PinK]halcyon stop.it.
Licho[0K] wth is wrong with you people, i care about current server - uberserver - and its players
[CN]Zydox The replacement for TASServer (Spring Lobby Server)
Licho[0K] ok
then it should be implemented there too but no hurry
[PinK]halcyon this requires a vote
Licho[0K] vote on what exactly?
[PinK]halcyon although aegis thinks..he can implement whatever he likes, there are other projects too
23:05
[PinK]halcyon so I suggest we take a vote on it
Licho[0K] other issue with SL is that "server version" should be with trailing .0 too 87.0 per our agreement
_koshi_ there's no documentation or proposal to vote on or to implement as far as I am concerned
Licho[0K] and SL atm demands it to be 87
[PinK]halcyon then we should postphone it until next meeting when there is documentation
_koshi_ please don't jump ahead
Malina so, _koshi_, Are you gonna change everything ?
Licho[0K] im pretty sure ther eis documention somewhere
i read docs before implementing it
you should ask aegis
[CN]Zydox It needs to go into the officila lobby protocol
_koshi_ we've asked him more than once to add it there
he refuses and points to source
Licho[0K] well he is pragmatist
so is satirik and me
[PinK]halcyon ok so, postphone until next meeting, continue to next topic
_koshi_ imo we never should've accepted that practice, but now it's pretty clear its fail
Licho[0K] i need this fixes
as it screwed players
its real issues
SL join ZK games and desync games
_koshi_ and once again it happens because you're using sth everybody else isn't
[PinK]halcyon *there are mor lobbies than SL
Licho[0K] nobody elseI lived under impressions that its set in stone
[PinK]halcyon you didn't document this for the meeting
in fact you added it in the last few hours
Licho[0K] koshi you can read how i works, its rather simple
compat flag + 1 extra argument
if you dont set compat flag you see (incompatible xxx) in game title added by server
_koshi_ that's just further enabling aegis to add undocumented stuff tbh
[CN]Zydox Licho, would you mind appending it to the official protocol?
_koshi_ uhm
[PinK]halcyon atm aegis rushed this change into his implementation, it could be done with custom properties
Licho[0K] sure i will ask aegis where it is and copy paste it
i dont know where it is atm but im sure it was written in text before i started coding it
[PinK]halcyon *done nicer
Licho[0K] no it could not, backwards compatibility halcyon
he done it right
_koshi_ it's not exactly backwards compatible tho as you tell it now
Licho[0K] well he wanted to hide it
or block join
i asked him to let people join anyway
so that they can be instructed by epople ingame
so he changes title instead
[PinK]halcyon you know it's a hack
Licho[0K] how its a hack?
no i dont
[PinK]halcyon it could be done cleanly with custom properties when that is ready
Licho[0K] and how do you provide backwards compatibility with custom properites
for lobbies that have no clue about it
how do you let user know its "something different" ?
also it belongs to battle
it should be part of openbattle
and it is
its perfect implementation as far as i am concerned
[PinK]halcyon !join was a perfect implementation as far as you were concerned too
_koshi_ geez
Licho[0K] no it wasnt, i always wanted server side support
[PinK]halcyon propertiesdefine could use a backward compatible way for older clients
Licho[0K] that means server has to process this property differently
defeating the prupose of properties
and making this hack
[PinK]halcyon it's a temporary thing
that code can be removed in the future
Licho[0K] also you can run into issues when you need to open battle and start instantly
[PinK]halcyon your proposal cannot
Licho[0K] before proeprties are set for example
or something like that
also you need to read this proeprty from all battles
_koshi_ imo until this is added to protocol aegis needs to change the compat implementation so openabttle is not relayed for engine revs incompatible with current server wide
Licho[0K] its perfectly natural in battle
nah i disagree
it would be much bigger problem
if you want to do that run separate srever
dont want to split battles
_koshi_ don't follow how this would split battles if I would never see a battle that is incompat for me
Licho[0K] yeah
so community would be split
[PinK]halcyon let's not have multiple systems for properties, if custom properties is pegged for the future, use that
Licho[0K] ZK would not see BA
BA would not see ZK
about 50% of battles played are now on dev build of engine
it would be hidden
and ZK would lose all SL players
[PinK]halcyon um
at this point, you could run your own server..
Licho[0K] sreiously
[PinK]halcyon well yeahwhy not
Licho[0K] im losing my patience here
get this guy out
or im out too
[PinK]halcyon :D
this is why I say put it to vote
23:19
_koshi_ Licho[0K]: you would loose all linux SL players anyhow since there simply is no way for me to download any given engine version
Licho[0K] thats ok koshi
you only need to alert user
[PinK]halcyon no it's not okey
Licho[0K] and let him join if he has the version
atm problem is you dont let them join with correct version :)
and let them join with incorrect
linuxers have simple 2 lines to build correct spring
we send it to them
[PinK]halcyon build spring?
..
_koshi_ that's not correct licho
[PinK]halcyon c'mon licho most people don't have a build environment setup
Licho[0K] its one package
as i say its 2 lines
[PinK]halcyon not really
_koshi_ if you tell them to replace the global install you're esentially fucky any other game
Licho[0K] that install and run eveyrthing
they dont install globla one
it installs in different folder
[PinK]halcyon have you even played on linux man
Licho[0K] they then change sl to point to different folder
[PinK]halcyon speechless
[CN]Zydox Doesn't hat screw up every other game for that user?
_koshi_ yes
[PinK]halcyon yes
Licho[0K] nah they know it and they can switch back
you can warn them
which is all thats needed
you have version X battle wants version Y
and let user solve it
[PinK]halcyon um what you are proposing is ludicrous and would ruin experience for many linux users
Licho[0K] im pretty sure that letting people join with incorrect version
and preventing them to join with correct
ruins it far more
which is current state
[PinK]halcyon you can't juggle installs on linux
Licho[0K] as it turns out all linux zk players did it just fine
its been live for 2 days and all went fine
biggest issue was digging that SL config switch
[PinK]halcyon and the next dev engine version?
Licho[0K] what you meanZK will swap to whatever build makes game work fine preferably the "server" one
[PinK]halcyon there is no such thing as building spring in 2 lines
Licho[0K] there is
read forums
[PinK]halcyon no
which linux distro
Licho[0K] http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=27860
[PinK]halcyon this only works on the debian family
Licho[0K] irrelevant
[PinK]halcyon and it's incomplete
Licho[0K] doe snot matter how hard it is
[PinK]halcyon it is not irrelevant
Licho[0K] what matters is current state is more broken
than the state after fix
_koshi_ that' actually overrides the package install licho
Licho[0K] refusing to join with correct version is bad
as is allowin gto join with incorrect
[PinK]halcyon good luck doing that on another distro
Licho[0K] in fact it cannot be more broken
ok koshi didnt know that but they can reinstall package right?
[1uP]CarRepairer i talked to abma who will consider adding engine downloading to pr-downloader
_koshi_ won't do anything
[1uP]CarRepairer even though as you say linux is more complicated for engine builds
_koshi_ unless that install is removed licho
[PinK]halcyon you can't just download the engine
_koshi_ it will override the package install
Licho[0K] ok then instructions should be changed to remove prior package
[PinK]halcyon what koshi is saying
Licho[0K] anyway thats irrelevant to the issue at hand
[PinK]halcyon it's not
_koshi_ it really isn't licho and it's the core of why we have no multi engine stuff in SL
Licho[0K] i dont ask you to make downloader
just fix damn version checking
[PinK]halcyon this also goes for other linux lobbies
_koshi_ with current engine build setup there's no sane way to keep more than one global install
Licho[0K] i know it
[PinK]halcyon linux cannot even handle multiple unitsync
libunitsync.so will have one path
your scripts would have to change it depending on game
Licho[0K] soFind a different solution or just fix checking and let it be the way it is
i dont care if you have 1 or million version on linux
[PinK]halcyon also compile process takes long
Licho[0K] just let users join with god damn correct verison
[PinK]halcyon installing the official package takes 1 minute maybe
building could take 30 min
_koshi_ the checking isn't broken and any game can distribute it's own global config for SL
there you can disable version chekcing
Licho[0K] fine i will run my own server then
bye
[PinK]halcyon bye
next topic?
[CN]Zydox Hmm, my AH handles multiple version on linux
Next point would be the account e-mail link
A vote on that one
_koshi_ alright
[CN]Zydox I feel it's lacking documentation regarding how multiple accounts with the same e-mail is handled
_koshi_ you had sth for that
right
did we consider that last time?
[CN]Zydox A possible solution would be to add User as a param to LOSTPASSWORD
So it would be "LOSTPASSWORD [CN]Zydox Zydox@Zydox.co.uk"
_koshi_ iirc we wanted to keep username out of the cmd
[PinK]halcyon that makes sense
_koshi_ so you can recover if you forget username
[CN]Zydox It was just to prevent spamming, afaik
_koshi_ which people saw more likely than forgetting email
[CN]Zydox So that I couldn't issue it for you, and everyone else on the server
I'm open to other suggestions though, but I think the system should be able to handle multiple accounts with the same e-mail
For Autohosts and users with multiple computers...
23:35
[PinK]halcyon and users with irc accounts too
_koshi_ hmm?
[PinK]halcyon I think hoijui has one of those
_koshi_ ah, the irc bridge
[CN]Zydox [AG]Abma & amba_irc and so on
_koshi_ those are normal lobby accounts
[PinK]halcyon we want to keep the ability for users to have multiple accounts on one emailagreed?
[CN]Zydox +11
+11
Bah
+1
_koshi_ as long as email is optional, yes
[CN]Zydox Yes, it should be
_koshi_ alright, vote on: add mandatory username to LOSTPASSWORD
+0
[CN]Zydox +1
[PinK]halcyon sec, how about keeping username out
and sending all accounts?
[CN]Zydox Perhaps add another command like "LOSTACCOUNT [Email]" whould would send the accounts
[1uP]CarRepairer sorry to interrupt but i'd like to bring up a point even if it's not on the agenda: voting rights should belong to people whose lobby clients and autohosts are actually used by a significant number of spring users (this excludes me). there is something serious going on right now with licho and you should all heed what i say here
[PinK]halcyon i'm not sure if it's supposed to send an email with the password or if you click a confirmation link, if a link, you could have multiple links for each account
23:40
[CN]Zydox Would become a long list for the AURelaySlave ;)
[PinK]halcyon hm..but forgetting your account is a real problem that many users have
especially if you have been inactive for a while
[CN]Zydox That's why I'd add the LOSTACCOUNT option
I'd assume some knows their password, just forgotten their account name...
[PinK]halcyon ok but, currently we add new commands by writing cmd proposal first
[CN]Zydox But perhaps that just happens to me...
[PinK]halcyon then voting on them
so..
[CN]Zydox Well, this discussion just started now
[PinK]halcyon yeah
[CN]Zydox I would say that the current proposal should be extended with support for multi accounts
Before we approve it
[PinK]halcyon any volunteer to do that?
zydox?
[CN]Zydox I suck at git, but I can help hoi
[PinK]halcyon k
[CN]Zydox I'll try to get it done before next meeting
_koshi_ k
now, [1uP]CarRepairer, got more to say ?
[1uP]CarRepairer nope
[PinK]halcyon I think that could wait til after the meeting, maybe licho calmed down then
[CN]Zydox Soo, next vote... on the SAYDATA proposal?
_koshi_ with now 4 people actively here we're actully bewlow our self set limit
[CN]Zydox ok, so skip that point for next meeting?
[PinK]halcyon isn't the limit for the meeting start?
I think Malina is here
so that would make 5
Malina here)
[PinK]halcyon good
next topic : -find a name for the Inter-lobby-client data exchange protocol-
a1983 me too )
Malina just bla
[CN]Zydox Lurkers: Activate
[PinK]halcyon any suggestions?
[CN]Zydox Isn't that the SAYDATA* ?
[PinK]halcyon yes
it's a formality, to have a name to refer to it bu
*by
[CN]Zydox which Licho objected that we changed between the two last meetings
a1983 Client Protocol?
[CN]Zydox https://github.com/spring/LobbyProtocol/compare/saydata
[PinK]halcyon any other suggestions?
client2client or user2client?
[CN]Zydox I like Inter-lobby-client protocol
a1983 Realy I think - that Inter-lobby-client protocol is ok )
[PinK]halcyon c2c protocol sounds kind of nice
lots of hyphens there :)
[CN]Zydox I think ppl will refer to it as SAYDATA in the end anyways...
[PinK]halcyon but ok..vote between client protocol or inter-lobby client protocol?
a1983 yeah
[PinK]halcyon those for client protocol?
+1
a1983 -1
[CN]Zydox +0
[PinK]halcyon 2 votes missingaway mode vote 0:)
_koshi_ -1
a1983 I think other not interested )
[PinK]halcyon k so -1 client protocol, vote for inter-lobby client protocol?
[CN]Zydox +1
[PinK]halcyon +0
_koshi_ +1
[PinK]halcyon one more?
a1983 +1
[PinK]halcyon k so 3 for, 1 abstain, 1 away
inter-lobby protocol it is then
[PinK]halcyon next topic - vote for the SAYDATA* protocol proposal
[CN]Zydox +1
[PinK]halcyon +1
a1983 why so many SAY* command?
Can we do one SAYDATA commnad?
[PinK]halcyon they send to different places
saydata to one user
a1983 ah - k
then +1
00:03
[PinK]halcyon koshiMalina?
if we have only 3 ppl, we should end the meeting
_koshi_ +1 to hoijui;s current doc stuff, yes
[PinK]halcyon ok, Malina??
Malina +
Clogger I am still here
Rebooting pc
a1983 so - next?
[PinK]halcyon car - vote on SAYDATA* protocol proposal?
00:07
Malina koshi can vote 3 times in a row :D
[1uP]CarRepairer abstain
[PinK]halcyon k so, 4 for, 2 abstain, protocol passed then
00:09
_koshi_ (that's just my irc cleint auto connect sutff, sorry)
[PinK]halcyon I suggest we skip 'add ueberserver stuff to protocol?' for next week
maybe aegis or hoijui has some input on it and they are not present
a1983 Yes. I think we need hoijui and aegis for that
[PinK]halcyon the next topic is 'decoupling account control from lobbyserver (for integration with external stuff like desura, fb, zk etc)' which was proposed by axiomatic but he seems to not be here
or is that koshisame color..
_koshi_ that was licho's point
i just moved it
Malina I am sorry guys, where is Licho ?
[PinK]halcyon aha
Malina :D
[PinK]halcyon well since he wrote no documentation..we really don't know what he means
could only speculate :)
Malina he just left ?
a1983 yes
_koshi_ I think we can let the official meeting end here for today
a1983 Agree
[PinK]halcyon agree
[CN]Zydox Agree
_koshi_ alright, meeting ends here -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malina nice
Results ?
[CN]Zydox A quick 105min meeting :)
[PinK]halcyon Malina you could write up a summary
and run the script
pm me if you need log

Summary:

  • [*]SpringLobby non-compliance with multi-engine protocol (and DisableVersionCheck config)
    [*]SpringLobby non-compliance with full engine version name in server data
    [PinK]halcyon loves trolling
    Licho[0K] left and will make his own server.
    So, we don't have server anymore


    [*]Vote for account recovery stuff
    Delayed until next meeting


    [*]Add ueberserver stuff to protocol?
    Inter-lobby Client Protocol Accepted


    [*]Decoupling account control from lobbyserver (for integration with external stuff like desura, fb, zk etc)

    Delayed until next meeting
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2441
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Google_Frog » 19 Mar 2012, 13:57

car wrote:sorry to interrupt but i'd like to bring up a point even if it's not on the agenda: voting rights should belong to people whose lobby clients and autohosts are actually used by a significant number of spring users (this excludes me).
Firstly this, why does anyone who's bashed together a coder project get equal votes? Surely people who do things useful to a larger portion of people should get to decide what happens.

Secondly what are the actual aims of the various people in this meeting? As in why are you developing lobby/server and what are you trying to do? I say this because Licho clearly wants to advance ZK and all this bickering over simple proposals is hurting Spring as a whole. Some people in the meeting seem disconnected from both the state of game development and the needs of the players.
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by luckywaldo7 » 19 Mar 2012, 15:25

Yes, honestly I don't see how its fair to expect the engine devs to do all the testing themselves. We need to be able to get some serious mutliplayer games on engine development versions to find all those bugs before release.

87 had horrifically breaking bugs and game devs needed to scramble to try to hack some fixes with lua. Being able to get some serious testing in before release is a benefit to everyone. Engine devs will be under less pressure with other people doing the testing (and hopefully allow for faster development), game devs will be able to ensure their games are fully compatible, and players will have a better game experience upon release.
0 x

User avatar
koshi
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1058
Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 16:15

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by koshi » 19 Mar 2012, 15:26

I don't think voting rights distribution is an actual problem. If you read the minutes cheesecan and zydox both would support a system that gives them less or no influence. I think giving the smaller projects a combined vote instead of the big ones vetoes would be fair and not effectively stall the process.

As for my personal aims, I had hoped they would be clear: new features and protocol must be clearly documented, potentially beneficial for all and if possible backwards compatible.
See the current issue with ZKL using dev build of the engine: The use of undocumented functionality, which was as I understand it implemented by aegis on licho's behalf, may be really useful for ZKL users on windows, but everybody who wasn't privy to that information is, nicely put, inconvenienced because the backwards compability is hinging on users telling users what to do (and apparently they're handing out incomplete/bad advice already). Now I'll grant that I might have somehow come to known this beforehand, but the fact is I've found the OPENBATTLEEX stuff only last week when actively searching for undocumented commands in uberserver source to put on the agenda for the next meeting. Exactly this kind of situation is what I hope these meetings will avoid in the future.
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by hoijui » 19 Mar 2012, 17:36

licho sais: he and aegis solved the problem, others should follow.

waldo sais: why do others not want this functionality?

that is .. you basically juut have no idea abotu reality, which shoudl be clear to anyone that is new to spring and has read just this meeting already. as it has no connection with our common reality at all, i recommend you to edit-remove your post.

thing is this:
we have a good way to do lobby protocol relevant stuff now. we have the ability to use this way for the multi-version support. we should use it for that.
i try to put it into a realistic scenario analogy, without any logic holes, and keeping it nice and clean:
hitler impregnated your gf/wife while you were out of town to get a penis enlargement and a fertilization booster, last week.
you now have these options:
1. go on living with your gf and hitlers child
2. abort, and impregnate your gf yourself
3. search yourself a new gf to impregnate

thing is this:
hitler & stalin are power hungry, and they are pissed that others want to have a say too.
hitler & stalin are intelligent (after all, they first had to get there), but they are not as intelligent as hitler & stalin & co.
the reason why we other then hitler & stalin & mao should have a say, is totally apparent in this meeting, for example.
it does not matter that others have less users, but it matters that they have brainpower and knowledge.
for example, hitler has no idea about linux at all, which is why lots of his proposals are fail, naturally. that deos not mean he is stupid, but that he is missing out on better ways to enlarge the Reich.
we now have a Reich enlargement hotline, and it should be used.
seriously, there is no other reason to be against this then fearing loss of power. of course the meeting members will not vote for something stupid, but possibly for something less ZK-needs friendly, if it is better for the general need.

we do not need veto or less voting rights for small user base devs. if they are always bringing up stupid ideas, they will loose right to take part (though i ma pretty sure that will not happen ever). we need their creative power, testing ability, their testing grounds and special field knowledge. because people like hitler just do not know how to plan a tank war, but would rush their troops into the cold russian winter.
.. ouh.. you preffer to be napoleon instead next time?
lets wait for next spring, it is comming soon enough, and sooner if we keep it warm in here.
Last edited by hoijui on 19 Mar 2012, 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Licho » 19 Mar 2012, 18:26

Halcyon and Koshi stated clearly that they dont want this multi engine thing (because of linux complexities) and that they would rather see ZK (games with non-default engine) out from the main server.

Re read minutes hoi and then you can start lecturing and venting your perversions.

This "setup" is hardly "ideal".

* Nothing was actually done so far, just endless bickering.
* Decisions from one meeting were overridden next meeting
* Aegis visited one meeting out of 4.
* Satirik visited none
* You made me so alienated I dont plan to visit any more.

-> people who are not stakeholders, who dont need those features and who are not coding them are left deciding about them.

You can run your own SpringLS server at 8201 on my server, governed by this circus and you can allow whatever rules you vote for there.

I will keep working with individual developers to get things done and to provide the best experience for the PLAYERS. Thats all that matters.
0 x

User avatar
koshi
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1058
Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 16:15

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by koshi » 19 Mar 2012, 19:02

If you interpreted my line of arguing before you stormed off as "don't want" I wasn't clear enough. I do want, but for everyone and in a way that doesn't overwhelm nubs.
That you dangle the "my box, my rules" argument over all of us now is quite frankly just bullshit. Hoijui and Hitler aren't helping, I'll grant you. Now if everyone ne could just calm the fuck down, stop with the name calling and the belittling of others, maybe we can still get this working.
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by hoijui » 19 Mar 2012, 19:13

what they said was, that what you were requesting is impossible, and that what you claimed, is wrong (2 cmd lines for a nice, easy adjustment to make your way work). they did not say they do not want multi version support, but they said it should be done differently (which implies that they do want it).

things did actually happen since we have the meeting. stuff has been decided and agreed uppon, huge holes in your solution have been found (becasue it was designed with windows knowledge only), springls patches have been made, protocol doc has been written.
current incompatibility problems on the live server would not have happened if it had gone the meetings way, and there is nothing that suggests that the meetings way is slower then yours (even though it would still be better to have a non buggy solution late, then a buggy one fast).

i would also like to mention, that we tried to have a meeting with only the big shareholders earlier, and it failed horribly.
so much about only these people should have a say.
0 x

User avatar
knorke
Posts: 7971
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 01:02

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by knorke » 19 Mar 2012, 19:15

why dont you use forum names?
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Licho » 19 Mar 2012, 19:41

[PinK]halcyon I oppose this, run another server for other engines
[PinK]halcyon version too
[PinK]halcyon pls, host another server for other versions
[PinK]halcyon um
at this point, you could run your own server..
[PinK]halcyon bye
next topic?
I quite simply refuse to be dealt with like this. I asked for halcyon to be removed from discussion and got no support.

I spend roughly 1000$ on this server each year + maintenance time. Over 6 years at spring I developed lots of lobby related stuff (lobbies, springies, bots) and my stuff is actually used by the only growing segment of spring.

You gotta realize who important people are in this business and treat them properly.

Yes I will assume more controlling role now because this and hoi frequent treatises are way past my toleration levels.

_koshi_ imo until this is added to protocol aegis needs to change the compat implementation so openabttle is not relayed for engine revs incompatible with current server wide
_koshi_ don't follow how this would split battles if I would never see a battle that is incompat for me

_koshi_ the checking isn't broken and any game can distribute it's own global config for SL
there you can disable version chekcing
This imo clearly indicates desire to rather hide ZK than to do small code change in SL that would prevent desyncs and stopped blocking correct version from joining. Motivation can be buroacratic in this case but think about the players!
0 x

User avatar
koshi
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1058
Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 16:15

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by koshi » 19 Mar 2012, 20:51

Licho wrote:I quite simply refuse to be dealt with like this. I asked for halcyon to be removed from discussion and got no support.
Instead of ignoring him you ask us to a set a precedence that anyone you want needs to be removed immediately or you'll quit.
Licho wrote:I spend roughly 1000$ on this server each year + maintenance time.
When you're qouting these kind of figures at least be honest and upfront about how much that is offset by donations and how massively overpriced/overpowered that rental is for the stuff that isn't zerok only.
Licho wrote:You gotta realize who important people are in this business and treat them properly.

Yes I will assume more controlling role now because this and hoi frequent treatises are way past my toleration levels.
Stuff like that is why people easily find you antagonistic.
Licho wrote:This imo clearly indicates desire to rather hide ZK than to do small code change in SL that would prevent desyncs and stopped blocking correct version from joining.
First off, please stop commenting on what changes are necessary in SL, you've demonstrated to be unqualified. Secondly, the way you're now telling people to build spring and point SL to that install is mucking it up for all other games. So yeah, I think for a all purpose lobby it's only fair to other people to use a compat mode that doesn't force this on users.
_koshi_ the checking isn't broken and any game can distribute it's own global config for SL
there you can disable version chekcing
You've left out that you stormed off without responding and before I could tell you how you can achieve what you want w/o messing things up for other games. A future proof way too, but suit yourself if you like drama better.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Licho » 19 Mar 2012, 21:35

First off, please stop commenting on what changes are necessary in SL, you've demonstrated to be unqualified. Secondly, the way you're now telling people to build spring and point SL to that install is mucking it up for all other games. So yeah, I think for a all purpose lobby it's only fair to other people to use a compat mode that doesn't force this on users.
WTH are you talking about. All I EVER asked for was VERSION DETECTION fix. I understand the version detection problem perfectly.

I dont want SL to download engine, I know its complex for linux.

You appear to be incapable of telling difference between version check fix and some multi version management which isnt on the agenda!
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Forboding Angel » 19 Mar 2012, 21:50

I suggest that Cheesecan be barred from future meetings until he learns that trolling is bad mmmk?

This meeting was a fiasco as a direct result of him relentlessly trolling Licho.

It is shameful that the rest of you let it go on. This was a discussion that afaict Koshi and Licho were more than qualified to carry out.

Moreover, I support Licho in his drive to push things forward. He is saying what I have said for so long, but no one hears me.

The players are what matter!

Now, koshi and licho, the two of you need to get together, ALONE, and figure out a common ground and then implement it. Koshi, I like to think I know you quite well by this point, and I know that you are very reasonable and easy to get along with. We both know that Licho can be a pain in the dick to deal with, but he's also quite reasonable once you get past the barbed wire that is his exterior personality.

As the two of you don't know each other past arguing and hurling insults at one another, I suggest that you get to know each other and sort this shit out.

I fully support Licho's cause, but I understand Koshi's reluctance due to the way linux handles packages and so forth (I seriously hate with an undying passion the way that linux handles packages and program "Installs". Imo (and only imo) it truly is shit.), but you two need to cry a fucking river, build a goddamn bridge, and get the hell over it. This back and forth shit isn't doing anything but harming our userbase.

Lets get it together guys! The both of you can work this out and we will ALL benefit from it. Lets get a plan of action that works for both of you, and then implement it!
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Licho » 19 Mar 2012, 21:54

Btw, believe it or not,server is not that overpowered..
typical usage is like this:

Image
Image

I dont know if you remember this, but just before last upgrade 4-5 months ago we got massive issues, with games (dedicated servers) lagging significantly, forum not loading for half a minute etc.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Licho » 19 Mar 2012, 21:58

Thank you FA, yes I would rather talk this through with Koshi alone.
0 x

User avatar
koshi
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1058
Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 16:15

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by koshi » 19 Mar 2012, 22:40

There is only one thing I am not prepared to compromise on and that is implementing changes/features that aren't reflected in the ProtocolDescription. It should be obvious to everyone that this has gotten us into 2 not-so-nice-situations inside of 2 months now.
I am very reluctant to have any two people dictate changes, even if I am one of them.
The rest we can at least talk about.

So I'd like input on how we can proceed from here.
Maybe it would we a good idea to change the format to something that takes away the stress and irritability of real-time communication while staying (semi-)public?
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by Forboding Angel » 19 Mar 2012, 23:02

Koshi, I think you're missing the point by a small degree.

The idea isn't so much that the two of you dictate what happens, so much as the two of you find solutions to the issues that you have, and then suggest the solutions to the others. In this way, conversation is productive, and I highly doubt any of the other lobby devs would make trouble other than providing their valuable opinions as well as to how to improve what you and licho have come up with.

The implementation step that I am talking about isn't only implementation, it also involves discussing it with the other lobby devs and basically saying:

"Here is what licho and I have come up with, and it allows ZKL and SL to live in harmony and provides us all with features for the future. Does anyone have issues with doing it this way, or does anyone have anyone have suggestions on how to even further improve it?"

In this way, everyone gets what they want, without the bickering, moreover, the two of you can provide the much needed leadership for lobby development. Leading does not mean Dictating, Leading means that you quite literally Lead. You always push forward, plowing the way. Yeah, you're going to hit a rock once in a while, but you dig out the rock and keep going.

Group discussions are quite obviously failing due to lack of leadership. Be the leaders! You guys can do it! I know that for a fact!
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by smoth » 20 Mar 2012, 00:00

feels like a troll thread rather than minutes.
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3560
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by abma » 20 Mar 2012, 02:33

[1uP]CarRepairer i talked to abma who will consider adding engine downloading to pr-downloader

that currently would make only sense for windows and maybe macosx. i personally would prefer a (more) light-weight engine that doesn't change so often, so we don't need multiple versions of spring. but thats maybe not possible without a close to complete rewrite of the engine, because of already to many hardcoded stuff inside the engine. (so that doesn't matter here, because it will take years to change that). so for the moment i try to focus on autodownloading maps and games from all systems (plasma/rapid/upq) on all platforms.

i also would like to see some decoupeling of account data, that allows auth on a different services / feedback emails or something like that.
(for example, a mail with errors/warnings in uploaded files).

in general, imo you're on a good way here, since years it feels like a some movement come to the lobby development. so keep on going! :-)
0 x

User avatar
hoijui
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 4342
Joined: 22 Sep 2007, 09:51

Re: Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.03.18

Post by hoijui » 20 Mar 2012, 09:20

koshi wrote:Maybe it would be a good idea to change the format to something that takes away the stress and irritability of real-time communication while staying (semi-)public?
not sure what you mean. instead of the current chat style meeting, doing something more forum like, with read access for everyone?
i don't know what that should solve.

we all want the best for the players. licho thinks he alone knows that that is (together wiht other ZK folks maybe). we think licho + others know better. as koshi mentioned, the current issues kind of show a fail of lichos way, and logic suggests clearly that this smae fial would not have happend in hte licho+ way. now we should try the licho+ way.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Lobby Meeting Minutes”