For news and announcements, visit:

<nore> OldCoder: I'm sorry to say so, but it is *you* who is really agressive towards people and who seems to restart the argument over and over again
<nore> that "1.10 times" point you're saying each time is part of it
<nore> so you're the one keeping it alive

<nore> and I understand why sfan5 felt so, seeing as I already left this channel some time ago and came back when the discussion was over, but you restarted it yet another time
<nore> so bye, and I'll be back when you are longer shooting people on sight
* nore ([email protected]) has left ("WeeChat 1.4")

<paramat> ^ i somewhat agree with that

<shivajiva> you can afford to take a more mature stance, you can ride that with your eyes shut I believe :)
(next part is PM)
<shivajiva> from your factionalism of something you held together with will

<OldCoder> That doesn't even parse
<OldCoder> If it is negative, shove off
<OldCoder> I deserve better from the group and from you

(next part is a quote)

<sfan5> and in all honesty i am getting tired of this
<Shara> Break it in a way that doesn't alienate so many people.
<sfan5> unless there is disgreement in the dev team the second PR will be the best you see
<sfan5> have fun doing your hostile fork
<sfan5> have fun seein the fork die

<OldCoder> Enough
<OldCoder> The fork is now formally announced. See nore's remarks, sfan5's and my own; what I actually said

This is a fork and not a spoon
Have fun, as sfan5 said, driving under the Moon
I've no further interest in loon-
atic antics

Bash smash trash the ones who try to help
Well, I'll tell you this, whelp
Enough is enough, want to talk tough
That is fine with me
Because, you see

I do what I do for reasons that are true
Recent decisions I stand by
So if you wish to sit on your horse high
Have fun, Son, because the Old Coder is done
Good Day to you

<rubenwardy> people have said things they'll probably regret
<OldCoder> :P Gee, you think?
<kaeza> :I
<benrob0329> what did i miss?
<OldCoder> A nice rhyme
<benrob0329> well, yes
* OldCoder thinks it is good for extemporaneous

celeron55 says:

<celeron55> i kind of trust the core devs, as i have personally selected them
<celeron55> [but] their stance kind of is [#1] that users don't decide and devs know better
<celeron55> and also [#2] that even while many people disagree with the change, there's a larger group of people that want it based on the response to the original PR.
<celeron55> i'm not sure about that though; there's no proper poll or anything. it's just silly emoticons and talk.

#1 strikes me as hubris.

The sneak PR didn't simply add a feature or fix a bug or restructure things internally. It changed the feeling of the game.

This is going to happen at times. The game is a work in progress. Change is inevitable. But remarks made by some core devs regarding perceptions of the change seemed dismissive.

Dismissive isn't appropriate. The core devs are a key part of the project. Evolution of the core isn't possible without them. But the heart, in the body, doesn't tell the brain, "take a hike", or vice versa.

The people who assemble and host worlds, the people who create mods and entire _games, and, yes, the players, are part of the project and shouldn't be treated as irritations to be brushed aside.

If a change is going to affect game play, and there is significant opposition based on the feeling of the game, which is part of the game's identity, opposition needs to be weighted.

The feeling of the game, its identity, shouldn't change significantly without broad consensus.

My own proposal is about more than the current issue. I'm not wading into this just to press for a single ill-advised PR to be reverted.

(1) Do NOT bulldoze controversial changes into core. Such changes are not to be rushed.

(2) DO speed up acceptance of minor changes that are considered non-objectionable, especially those can be placed under option control.

(3) I'd like to see is the core devs participating more in the -project channel and taking the feelings of people outside their small group seriously.

My understanding is that celeron55 feels the same way:

<celeron55> the weird thing about this is that #-project was meant to be a place where devs and important
users can talk about things, and that isn't happening
<celeron55> or is, but too little
<celeron55> do whatever you think makes sense
<celeron55> but keep in mind that it really seems core devs are kind of alienated from the way of thinking that you and I do
<celeron55> you can publish the entirety of this if you want to

In short, the core devs need to be less peremptory and more consensus oriented.

They need to bulldoze through fewer objectionable changes and, at the same time, be more open to smaller changes that are judged to be harmless.

There has been progress. The -dev channel is less of an insiders-only club these days. People aren't shot on sight just for expressing alternate views. Not usually.

I see creativity, genuine talent, and skills in action. And I see debate where different points of view are listened to and acknowledged.

But I, personally, don't want to lose more key people, on either side, than is necessary. In fact, I'd like to see the notion of "side" diminish. People on all sides need to feel that they're part of a team.

If this doesn't happen, ultimately, I'll launch a spoon, Minebest, as opposed to a fork. It'll be synced automatically unless upstream changes break the sync. In this case, it'll become a non-evolving fork.

Some view spoons as impractical and, yes, forks usually just die. Even Maciek, RBA, couldn't succeed with his.

But if I ultimately create a spoon, or a fork, I'll have the support of some key world hosts, the and domains, the Android side through Lord Fingle's code base, and I'm pretty good at short-tail SEO. My Windows builds are also as good as, or superior to, official.

My stuff will be ranked with upstream in Google per se and in the Play Store.

The primary point of the spoon, or fork, will be to offer both core devs and non-core devs who haven't got their PRs accepted respect and a place for code to be used.

Nobody will be able to replace the core devs as a group. But individuals will support the features that they added and want to see used. So, I'll probably end up with a largely static but stable version of Minetest with a few extra features.

It won't sit idle. It'll be used on my worlds, it'll probably edge out the other Android versions, and some of the other key world owners will deploy it.

But it'll be simpler if the principles of consensus, backwards compatibility, and seeking balance are respected. This is my request.

celeron55 adds:

<celeron55> one thing you are implying with this (that some may not understand) would be:
<celeron55> people on #-project are more important than random voters on github issues
<celeron55> i'm not sure if everyone agrees with that
<OldCoder> It is the case
<celeron55> i agree with that
<OldCoder> Because core devs chose IRC as their venue
<OldCoder> This is a parallel steering committee in the same venue and people are vetted
<OldCoder> Input should be taken from all
<OldCoder> But -project needs to be taken seriously

sofar says, so far :P

<sofar> let's take my view: I'm in support of removing the feature
<sofar> I see a PR implementing [the removal]. I review it. I see no issues.
<sofar> I give it a +1
<sofar> it's just drowned in random discussions now between people strongly opposing it
<sofar> and paramat trying to save it by claiming mods will fix it (which I disagree with)

<OldCoder> sofar, a change that affects the feel of a game should not go through, in the face of opposition, without a +5
<OldCoder> is that a reasonable proposal?
<sofar> certainly worth considering, yes (reasonable too)

<sofar> the reason I pushed back on celeron55 is because I had seen no significant announcement or discussion about reverting, and, apart from server operators that wanted it back, I see no core dev that is adamant about getting it back, either?
<sofar> at least, that paraphrases how I perceived it

<OldCoder> But it should not have gone through to begin with.
<OldCoder> It was change to the game's identity
<OldCoder> +2, or whatever, should not have been enough to pass it
<OldCoder> In the face of strong opposition

<sofar> right, it's entirely reasonable to have been discussed for longer
<sofar> I'm much more of a "everything goes as long as everyone knows we're doing this"
<sofar> than "I really want to kill sneak ladders"
<sofar> I think we failed on that first thing
<sofar> not the second

<sofar> I have very little appreciation for game mechanics and would largely change them or experiment with them
<sofar> if it suits my needs or desires

<OldCoder> Some people feel that the core devs don't play the game enough or associate with those that do
<OldCoder> So they're supposed to come to -project to discuss things
<OldCoder> -project was created partly to serve as a steering committee
<OldCoder> The core devs invest time
<OldCoder> But the game is not solely their property
<OldCoder> Heart does not tell Brain "Shove off" or vice versa. Or they both go.

Rubenwardy comments:

<rubenwardy> yeah, the sneak fix PR was merged too quickly
<rubenwardy> Even though I'm a redcrab user, I don't like the sneak glitch. It's nostalgic, but isn't good game design
<rubenwardy> HOWEVER
<rubenwardy> this is supposed to be an engine, and some users like it
<rubenwardy> I don't see it as a big part of the games identity. It's a very hidden feature, only found by coaching from other player / signs whilst playing multiplayer
<rubenwardy> but I 100% agree that it shouldn't have been merged so quickly

<OldCoder> It is part of the identity of the game to some players
<OldCoder> I wasn't familiar with the feature myself
<OldCoder> I'd like to see lesser changes merged far more quickly
<OldCoder> And ones that are felt to be serious based more on consensus

Shara shares :P

<Shara> Just this is part of the reason this is such a big deal. Devs saying 'no' were ignored.
<Shara> Anything flagged controversial should probably need more discussion than this was given

(end of post)