Jump to content

Branching Pre-Renewal out of working branch (Using Git)


Kisuka

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  24
  • Reputation:   2
  • Joined:  09/11/12
  • Last Seen:  

This is most-likely not going to happen.

The side option of Pre-Renewal is causing no harm, and imo the way it is currently setup is totally fine.

Plus, most populated servers out there uses rAthena with the option of Pre-Renewal.

Justmy2cents

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  42
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  227
  • Reputation:   11
  • Joined:  11/16/11
  • Last Seen:  

From the word "Emulator" itself, devs should be focusing on emulating the official servers. Official servers doesn't have Pre-Re so why do devs here still bother about the pre-re and re settings to be disabled or not. I agree to branching out pre-renewal to git since there are so many servers that uses pre-renewal.

Again, devs should be focusing on emulating the official ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  57
  • Reputation:   0
  • Joined:  09/13/12
  • Last Seen:  

any fixed dates for pre-renewal removal??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Developer
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1443
  • Reputation:   337
  • Joined:  10/17/12
  • Last Seen:  

No its still under discussion if its even going to be removed /branched

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  33
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  355
  • Reputation:   34
  • Joined:  02/09/12
  • Last Seen:  

That's more cool.. GO GITHUB, GO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Content Moderator
  • Topic Count:  22
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  639
  • Reputation:   596
  • Joined:  11/25/11
  • Last Seen:  

Official servers doesn't have Pre-Re.

False, even bRO started a Pre-Re server.

Well, in my sicere opinion, which is the same of 90% of nowadays players I know (and I know a lot of...), Renewal wasn't a good idea.

To be honest, players hate most of things that came with Renewal, even the 3rd Jobs.

Everytime players of mine asked for 3rd classes, for example, everything I needed to say is: 'Go to another server, and try renewal mechanics.', and them, they goes, and came back in a week.

You, people who works with Renewal have all my respect, but I work for years for players who will never like Renewal.

I did edits, reworks, adaptations, all to new features can fits the Transclass playing way and it was important to them;

You say that's important to clean pre-renewal to preserve and enhance rAthena to Emulation proposition.

So, why should contribute to something that will not be useful for everyone who uses it now?

So...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  99
  • Reputation:   10
  • Joined:  11/21/11
  • Last Seen:  

Your player never play on a renewal balance server. Sorry to tell that but rathena is really far to be balance. The atk formula will really help this. But there is many skill that need to be reworks. The thing is when you play on a full renewal server it's hard to come back to pre-re.

Long life to rathena dev =)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  42
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  227
  • Reputation:   11
  • Joined:  11/16/11
  • Last Seen:  

Official servers doesn't have Pre-Re.

False, even bRO started a Pre-Re server.

I'm talking about the latest one o.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  56
  • Reputation:   30
  • Joined:  02/22/12
  • Last Seen:  

Official servers doesn't have Pre-Re.

False, even bRO started a Pre-Re server.

At this point you can't classify the international servers as 'official'. Yes they own a license to be an "official" server but they all change their scripts, and formulas, making them custom servers. The only true official server is kRO, which is what we should always be copying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Content Moderator
  • Topic Count:  22
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  639
  • Reputation:   596
  • Joined:  11/25/11
  • Last Seen:  

Your player never play on a renewal balance server. Sorry to tell that but rathena is really far to be balance. The atk formula will really help this. But there is many skill that need to be reworks. The thing is when you play on a full renewal server it's hard to come back to pre-re.

Long life to rathena dev =)

Your point is logical, but, my point isn't invalid.

See, you said that rAthena is far from balance right? Well, so do kRO, look at that insane weekly patches which change that lots of things on each class.

Even kRO is far from balanced, what makes even more unfair to branch out pre-re, which is pretty much more functional right now.

You wanting or not, RO is business here too, and we try to contribute as we can, so, we can't wait for a 'perfect' state while we're working whith players.

Server admins and developers, aren't what we are?

And again, there's no point to pull out something what will make a good part of us unsheltered.

Edited by Haziel
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  28
  • Reputation:   20
  • Joined:  01/22/12
  • Last Seen:  

I really really wanted to avoid weighing in on this, mostly because of how I feel guilty about just disappeared from the scene, but what the hell.

I am not saying I'd resume working as a dev on rA if the switch to GIT and a RE-branch was made. That would be grossly unfair, untrue and I am not sure I would have the time and motivation to go through with it. But I will say that not adressing my issues with the code bloat from #defines has played a part in my silent retirement and cease to work on RE-atk. In my opinion, to do RE right, it has to be done.We know so much more about the internal workings of AEGIS these days that rewriting the atk/battle system should come with a complete revision of a LOT of parts of the code. And that is just plainly not doable without breaking the compatibility of that branch with pre-RE. For those who care, here is what I think would need to happen for a really good implementation fo RE-atk, gathered in my months of working on it:

  • Item DB needs a column for MDef (in addition to the script command). The reason for this is complicated (lr_flag)
  • Item scripts would need a complete overhaul. Race/Size/Ele/Range/Etc modifiers need to be changed to a format that more closely follows AEGIS' (to simplify battle calcs); struct weapon_data needs to follow suit
  • The special treatment of the arrow equip slot needs to be changed. It results in so much redundant, unnecessary code (lr_flag)
  • A lot of the status code needs adapting to those new formats (most prevalently, status_calc_def2)
  • A few side effects should be put from the battle calcs to more fitting places. A calc function should be able to be called without side effects
  • I'm sure I'm forgetting something
  • A lot of stats/substats need to be re-typed to signed types (atk, def...). this is probably one of the biggest ones on my list

I dont think a "proper" solution is possible without branching. One could argue for putting those db/script changes into pre-re as well, but I plainly don't see that happening. There are too many unknowns.

All that said, this is just my rambling as a short-time ex-dev. You guys have to find your own priorities, and I cannot promise you I will ever find the drive to work on rA again. I wish I could!

Best of luck with the project,

Wildcard

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  56
  • Reputation:   30
  • Joined:  02/22/12
  • Last Seen:  

Now that more and more people are voicing their opinions about branching RE, can we hear from the current core dev team members please? I'd like to hear their opinion on this matter which is currently halting the development process of RE.

Please explain in more than one sentence and don't link past topics.

Currently we have only heard from Lighta.

At the moment, the topic is about branching RE and pre-RE into their own branches. A sub-suggestion attached to this one is moving to Git or even Github to make this process even easier for the development and participation from others.

My side suggestion for the pre-RE branch: cut out any content that was added after RE. It should only contain pre-RE content (client features / packets, scripts, items, maps, etc). At that point it would only be a branch where things are bug fixed or optimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  120
  • Reputation:   44
  • Joined:  11/13/11
  • Last Seen:  

Who will adapt all the documentation if this is made? For instance, in the Spanish ragnarök community where I work, we have recently adapted everything to SVN rAthena RE & PRE, to encourage our users to run their servers with rAthena, and thus push this community a bit forward... if you come with this now I will kill myself... or what is most simple yet, I will go back to eAthena (or Hercules, which still keeps PRE without branching), and readapt all the material to that, which would be easier for me than to switch all the guides to github and this new branching.

Edited by Leeg
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Developer
  • Topic Count:  30
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  230
  • Reputation:   131
  • Joined:  11/21/11
  • Last Seen:  

Splitting PRE-RE and RE in 2 branches is double work for us devs, that's why we merge the scripts and created the checkre() command.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  52
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  185
  • Reputation:   20
  • Joined:  01/06/13
  • Last Seen:  

Forgive me is this sounds off topic but as a "product" rathena wasnt suppose to supply the "consumers" needs?

I know, im a user not a dev but i think that splitting may turn the things more complicated to the ones who use RE features mixed w/ Pre-RE in a try to balance things up.

just a thought, idk if its valid but its just something that came up in mi mind...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  72
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2997
  • Reputation:   1130
  • Joined:  05/27/12
  • Last Seen:  

Here are my thoughts thus far.

  1. We are very likely moving to GIT. The majority of our developers are fine with the move; pull requests are a big plus; merging is automated; and it certainly opens the possibility of doing something with branching in the future.
  2. If possible, there will be a read-only SVN mirror. Switching to GIT requires a clean checkout for users, so we'd upkeep an SVN repository that users can SVN Relocate to instead. Also, revision numbers will stay intact this way.
  3. If we do branch, we would have three: Pre-Renewal, Renewal, and mixed (most likely the master branch). It's certainly more work to maintain, but it'd satisfy everyone. The dev team has not agreed on this yet, though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  120
  • Reputation:   44
  • Joined:  11/13/11
  • Last Seen:  

If this entire thing was proposed because having PRE and RE was "halting" the development process, I don't see how now having two mirrors and three branches is going to improve things.

I would change nothing.

Edited by Leeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1335
  • Reputation:   932
  • Joined:  10/26/11
  • Last Seen:  

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Agree.

Forgive me is this sounds off topic but as a "product" rathena wasnt suppose to supply the "consumers" needs?

And true. Seems this point is somewhat omitted... what a mistake.

This recalls me those times when we had "stable and trunk" branches in eA. IMO separating Pre-RE on its own branch, is, a better -suitable- way of saying that you are gonna kill it.

Guys these* are not the best times to do -radical changes- like the one you are discussing here (About Pre-RE. I'm not refering about GIT move). Remember that there is another emu option now that is preserving Pre-RE. The only difference for now, between each projects is: a strong community backing here, that you surely will put on the fence with this move.

So I will say it simple. You want to take the risk and loose your "consumers", for a better "way of coding"?, then, sure do it =P. Not a good idea for me.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Content Moderator
  • Topic Count:  22
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  639
  • Reputation:   596
  • Joined:  11/25/11
  • Last Seen:  

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Agree.

Forgive me is this sounds off topic but as a "product" rathena wasnt suppose to supply the "consumers" needs?

And true. Seems this point is somewhat omitted... what a mistake.

This recalls me those times when we had "stable and trunk" branches in eA. IMO separating Pre-RE on its own branch, is, a better -suitable- way of saying that you are gonna kill it.

Guys these* are not the best times to do -radical changes- like the one you are discussing here (About Pre-RE. I'm not refering about GIT move). Remember that there is another emu option now that is preserving Pre-RE. The only difference for now, between each projects is: a strong community backing here, that you surely will put on the fence with this move.

So I will say it simple. You want to take the risk and loose your "consumers", for a better "way of coding"?, then, sure do it =P. Not a good idea for me.

That's what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  1
  • Reputation:   0
  • Joined:  06/03/13
  • Last Seen:  

Was this matter ever settled? Is it still open for discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  72
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2997
  • Reputation:   1130
  • Joined:  05/27/12
  • Last Seen:  

Was this matter ever settled? Is it still open for discussion?

We do plan to move our main repo to GIT in the near future; it'll be much more plausible when that happens. But the main problem is finding developers to maintain a separate branch, as we're nearly all concentrating on Renewal.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  228
  • Reputation:   33
  • Joined:  11/15/12
  • Last Seen:  

Why branch out PRE-RE? Leave it the way it is, rAthena is good as it is now. 

Edited by Keloyds
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  72
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2997
  • Reputation:   1130
  • Joined:  05/27/12
  • Last Seen:  

Why branch out PRE-RE? Leave it the way it is, rAthena is good as it is now.

If we do create branches, we'd have three:
  • Mixed RE/pre-RE, as it is now.
  • RE only.
  • Pre-RE only.
The main branch would be the first, so you wouldn't notice anything different.

(Again, this is a big "if" - we're always short of developers.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  228
  • Reputation:   33
  • Joined:  11/15/12
  • Last Seen:  

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Agree.

>Forgive me is this sounds off topic but as a "product" rathena wasnt suppose to supply the "consumers" needs?

And true. Seems this point is somewhat omitted... what a mistake.

This recalls me those times when we had "stable and trunk" branches in eA. IMO separating Pre-RE on its own branch, is, a better -suitable- way of saying that you are gonna kill it.

Guys these* are not the best times to do -radical changes- like the one you are discussing here (About Pre-RE. I'm not refering about GIT move). Remember that there is another emu option now that is preserving Pre-RE. The only difference for now, between each projects is: a strong community backing here, that you surely will put on the fence with this move.

So I will say it simple. You want to take the risk and loose your "consumers", for a better "way of coding"?, then, sure do it =P. Not a good idea for me.

 

I am totally agree with this guy! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  402
  • Reputation:   89
  • Joined:  02/07/13
  • Last Seen:  

I think just moving to git will be a good thing for the open source community with the pull request.

For the question to dev two branches, it'll just give extra work for nothing to dev ppl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...