www.tombraiderforums.com  

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Modding > Tomb Raider Level Editor > Software Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-06-16, 21:08   #1931
TeslaRus
Student
 
TeslaRus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvsgh View Post
TeslaRusMy personal opinion is that it would be a pity to lost current changes in master. But it's better than losing everything.
I think too, but we can copy MASTER changes to branch and save that as is and replace OT/OT HEAD with my branch (+ some changes for more convenient building). From current master (OT/OT) some changes can be moved to new (replaced) master. I will continue works in my branch and will upload stable changes (or bug fixes) to new MASTER;
UPD: thanks to stohrendorf for idea and good words;
P.S. here (in forum) we can use something like FaQ to solve gameplay logic problems (for all developers and branches);

Last edited by TeslaRus; 20-06-16 at 21:10. Reason: rephrase
TeslaRus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-16, 22:48   #1932
Lwmte
Archaeologist
 
Lwmte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,074
Default

So, to sum up things:

1. Steffen's "Edison" branch should be left apart for now, as he said himself. We can track the progress through Github, but it will be nice if Steffen will be providing us some demo videos on the way, as he has done in the past week. When Edison reaches playable stage, we can review it against "TeslaRus" branch and decide, does it worth trying to merge them again. This is to prevent mistake which we made merging Steffen's "C++-fication" branch back in 2015. Even Steffen himself now considers it a mistake.

2. TeslaRus' private branch should be forced into OpenTomb master, with "C++-ficated" branch left as deprecated backup. Someone should take this task, as I'm not fluent in Git. Richard_trle? TeslaRus? Anyone? We can delegate rights for someone else who's willing.

There is one problem, however. I did significant scripting upgrade with already C++-ficated master, so certain script functions need to be back-ported to TeslaRus branch from current (deprecated) master.

3. After TeslaRus branch is merged, we can again wind up automated nightly builds, twitter updates, etc., so people won't think that OpenTomb is dead. I should take part here too, cause I acted badly as well, when I stepped aside, as vvsgh rightfully said.

Very nice to see here everyone of you, people. Thanks for your support and interest!

Last edited by Lwmte; 20-06-16 at 22:49.
Lwmte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-16, 23:41   #1933
Kikiloco
Historian
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 380
Default

Quote:
So it's a bit confusing. And then there's things like the three-thousand-line switch statement from hell in anim_state_control.cpp, which still gives me nightmares. It's quite a fascinating sight to behold.
ouch, seem like every possible Lara animation & states was coded using case, if..else if.. If it is already done and working then it dosent have sense to refactor that, not for Lara; but something like that is needed for implement movables enemies like dogs, tiger, Human baddies etc, so before thinking on implement that i suggest to sit down and read about "Finite State Machine":

http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/...-gamedev-11867 which solve those tones of Case-if-else-if

Quote:
But in terms of style, this is really not an easy codebase to get the hang of if you're not TeslaRus yourself. I'm not sure anyone's actually managed to understand all or most yet;
Yeap, unfortunately this is what it most happen when you enter to checks everybody else code, even your own code will look strange to you when checking back 1 year later. Most us starts typing code meaning to make it run, not to meaning it have to be clear to someone else one day; well until you realize you need that then it is too late.

But in my opinion not understanding the source code is more a problem when people wants to update things here and there everywhere, with not any order or plan. In my experience I don't want to *known* everything from the source code i want to collaborate; i don't care how Teslarus handle Lara animation if i am assigned the task to collaborate with the rendering system for example. And if i am assigned to that task, then they have to tells me where i can found what i need and i have to be clear what i going to deliver.

The things is that it seems (i could be wrong but...) OpenTomb collaboration is that everybody download the source, make some changes, implement some stuff each one is most interested, then everyone say "hey TeslaRus, look what i did, could you merge my stuff into the master trunk?", "yea, not problem" and then he make fit everybody else changes. Same happen when you want to update your branch from the master, having to fight again and again with the new code to make it compile.


Quote:
Also, I should add that most conflict was about breaking the build system and making it very difficult to build the project on non-Linux platforms.
Well, if that still is not resolved i suggest it should be resolved before expecting more people came to collaborate; cos yea, if i get curious about the project, download the source but after one hour i still unable to compile then i will give up..., or if it compile but when I run the app i get just a black screen or no sense errors, i will give up. A clear guide to compile and run the program should be included.

Quote:
He is doing a lot of geometry and physics code development. And there is no substitute to that.
And what anyone else is doing meanwhile?, is there any plan?, is there any task assignment?, or the current project state is:

-One guy is doing Edison engine and don't bother me, i don't want anyone involvement yet.

-One guy is doing Tesla Engine and don't bother me, i don't want anyone involvement yet.

-Opentomb refactored in C++11, but there are not more programmers that want to bother with it?.


If Opentomb project is going to be a opensource again, then i suggest it have to be regrouped, checks how much developers still current interested, which skill they have to contribute, under which condition they agree to collaborate, what goals they want to archive, and if they can work based in a plan and assigned task.

Last edited by Kikiloco; 20-06-16 at 23:50.
Kikiloco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 00:34   #1934
Lwmte
Archaeologist
 
Lwmte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikiloco View Post
And what anyone else is doing meanwhile?, is there any plan?, is there any task assignment?, or the current project state is:

-One guy is doing Edison engine and don't bother me, i don't want anyone involvement yet.

-One guy is doing Tesla Engine and don't bother me, i don't want anyone involvement yet.

-Opentomb refactored in C++11, but there are not more programmers that want to bother with it?.
Simply put, yes. You described everything correctly. And now we all trying to understand how to get out of this situation.

Quote:
If Opentomb project is going to be a opensource again, then i suggest it have to be regrouped, checks how much developers still current interested, which skill they have to contribute, under which condition they agree to collaborate, what goals they want to archive, and if they can work based in a plan and assigned task.
I'd really like to contribute to scripts, weapon system (theoretically, we already can have ammo counters, etc.) and AI system in the future. My skills aren't enough for complex tasks, like task management, multithreading, graphics, memory, etc., but I still can make few tweaks here and there, if I see that something is wrong.

Clearly I don't want to make decisions whose branch is better and whose branch is worse anymore, because we already had bad experience with it. Really, there MUST be other man with strong voice who will say either "Yes, let's do it" or "No, it's a no go". That's what we missed year ago.

Last edited by Lwmte; 21-06-16 at 00:39.
Lwmte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 05:28   #1935
stohrendorf
Hobbyist
 
stohrendorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 77
Default

So we basically all agree that in the current state there is no progress, but if TeslaRus' branch would become the the new master, there would be at least a real chance that development would continue, right? So the lesser evil would be then to take over TeslaRus' branch.

And just in case, if someone needs a strong voice

stohrendorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 09:07   #1936
vvsgh
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwmte View Post
2. TeslaRus' private branch should be forced into OpenTomb master, with "C++-ficated" branch left as deprecated backup. Someone should take this task, as I'm not fluent in Git. Richard_trle? TeslaRus? Anyone? We can delegate rights for someone else who's willing.
Done. And thanks to Gh0stBlade who already did the backup.
vvsgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 09:34   #1937
Nickotte
Historian
 
Nickotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 256
Default

That's so amazing, you guys! I can't wait to be able to contribute again, even for as little as a git-fetch

There is one thing that still kinda confuses me, though; as I understand, one of the main things that happened was that a refactored commit broke everything, but wouldn't that be what pull requests are for? To prevent breaking everything? I'm not exactly an expert on git/github either, so I'm not sure how it would work.
Nickotte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 09:41   #1938
vvsgh
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 134
Default

Well, a PR is designed for peer reviews, but it can't prevent breakage per se. Steffen noted that it wasn't ready for merge but it wasn't noticed. GitHub introduced protected branches since then, but it wasn't available at the time.

And this brings us to question: should we protect master branch?
vvsgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 09:58   #1939
stohrendorf
Hobbyist
 
stohrendorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 77
Default

Yes, protect it! (And do the same with the backup branch.)
stohrendorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-16, 10:17   #1940
Nickotte
Historian
 
Nickotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 256
Default

Ah, I see. But what about the previous commits, why wasn't it rolled back once it was found to be not ideal?
Nickotte is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.