Muchos piensan que es como Minecraft, pero es mucho mejor.
Solamente superado por MineClonia, que es igual pero incluye mas cosas y es mas estable, ademas MineClonia esta muy bien mantenido, MineClone no se mantiene, aunque reportes errorres no los corrigen, puedes ver algunas issues de reportes, con crashes que han sido reportados en MineClone y que han ignorado incluso cuando se les ofrecia la solución a ese crash, esto no ocurre en MineClonia.
MineClone es Software Libre y eso permitira a todos extenderlo, con mods que Minecraft solo pudo soñar.
Para hacer mods en Minecraft hizo falta que unos hackers crearan herramientas externas como Forge.
Para hacer mods en MineClone tienes miles de herramientas disponibles y APIs. Todo lo que imagines lo podras hacer ;D
MineClonia isn't more stable. I've seen more crashes for it, tbh. For example, they removed error handling for mobs which stopped a game from crashing when an exception happened. We added this in because mobs is immature, needs a lot of work, and is subject to a lot of change. Many of the game crashes came from it, so it made sense to add in error handling. Many of Mineclonia's features and fixes comes from MineClone2.
What a game is advertised as, and what it is, are two different things.
I think this reply contains misinformation that I want to respond to. Note that I am a maintainer of Mineclonia.
MineClonia isn't more stable. I've seen more crashes for it, tbh.
I think its bold to claim that Mineclonia is not more stable without playing the game. When crashes do occur we are quick to fix them which the reviewer noted has not always been the case for VoxeLibre. There are also lots of bugfixes in Mineclonia which has not made it into VoxeLibre, which cannot be said the other way around.
For example, they removed error handling for mobs which stopped a game from crashing when an exception happened. We added this in because mobs is immature, needs a lot of work, and is subject to a lot of change. Many of the game crashes came from it, so it made sense to add in error handling.
I assume you are referring to wrapping the entire mob on_step in a pcall? That just hides problems and is a lazy way to avoid fixing anything. Also note that we did a mob refactoring before our first release so our mob code has been different from MineClone 2 the entire time.
Many of Mineclonia's features and fixes comes from MineClone2.
We credit MineClone 2 for all changes we backport in our changelogs. In total less than 20 % of changes comes from VoxeLibre (formely MineClone 2) and most of those are from the beginning when we forked from 0.82.0 and backported almost everything up to 0.84.0. At the point you wrote this post (2024-12-13) our 5 latest releases (0.88-0.92) had 110 changes, only 12 of which came from MineClone 2 which is barely 10 %.
(A response in 3 parts. Word count limit)
This post was over 7 months ago, so surprised to see it brought back from the dead. At the point of writing, I did see more introduced crash bugs in mcla code, than I did in VL. Even if you fix them, it's still adding instability. I used to follow the repo, and in all honesty, I actually stopped because it was painful to watch. Expecting users to test your code is stable by suffering crashes is not respectful to players imho. Bugfixes is a vague term. Making something functionally correct by fixing a bug that doesn't have a crashing effect doesn't make it more stable, it just makes the functionality more beneficial. It's a positive thing to do, but not something that would make it more "stable", so I stand by the point I made.
You advertise as "Fork of MineClone 2 with focus on stability, multiplayer performance and features". The insinuation is of course that we don't and you can see it by the reviews that inevitably followed it, it had that effect. If you don't really want to have these discussions (and there are many better things we can do with our time, it just isn't helpful to a world that we're just both trying to make good experiences for players), it's worth considering if you really even need that part. We do focus on those things. Heck, when I took over as maintainer from your co-maintainer, I spent probably 6 months working only on performance fixes. The important thing is always what you do, not what you say. It may be better to focus on your brand being as a game that maps closely to Minecraft features, which is a very useful thing to have a project doing that, and is a more positive focus.
Fixing crashes you introduce doesn't make it stable. Pretending unstable code is stable and removing sensible mitigations doesn't solve the problem. You wrongly assumed it hides the problem, the solution actually puts the message in the chat so the player can see it and asks them to report the bug, the only difference is, they can keep their world in a functioning state (for example clearing mobs) and carry on playing without waiting for devs to fix the crash and release it. It was a mercy fix so players wouldn't be impacted by immature code that needed a lot more work. You may have done a refactoring before release, and it is a good thing, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. Correct refactoring doesn't change the semantic effect of the code. It's about pulling out into functions, and making code more maintainable without changing it's functional effects. If it affects the functionality, it's a rewrite. Usually, you refactor to lay the foundations, and it's the bug fixes and improvements that address the problems. To get the mobs code we both base our game on in a good state would take years, and I'm pretty sure neither of us have achieved mature enough, reliable enough code to pretend it won't crash in any circumstance.
"We credit MineClone 2 for all changes we backport in our changelogs." It's an interesting statement, but I'm not sure it's true. Did Cora credit the pcall code I added to the get_natural_light code that she objected at length in an issue on our tracker and then introduced into MCLA as her own commits months later? I've seen a few examples of my code being repurposed without credit. So when you use the word all, please try to ensure it does apply for all.
I have had very little dealings with you previously other than what I read on your issue tracker or when you came to ours (and your conduct was positive), when I've read your takes on many things, I have a good level of respect for your gameplay and technical decision making. I personally would like to move forward, as us running seperate projects that both serve a positive niche is a good thing for Minetest players. I actually refer players to mcla that want a closer to MC style of play. It's also worth considering this when PRs are taken from VL (and there has been many, especially in the initial stages), with shade being thrown at the quality before rewriting it. Not liking code and wanting to improve it and saying why is a useful thing. Labelling contributors solutions as bad or questionable (with heavy insinuation that it's really bad) is just not a nice thing. It just isn't a good look on the project you lead, and the fact you turn a blind eye to it is less than ideal.
Let's move on, and both build great games, and enjoy it.
Did Cora credit the pcall code I added to the get_natural_light code that she objected at length in
It wasn't taken from mcl2 simple as that. I am surprised you even have it because if you do it clearly does not work !?
https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/issues/4310
which part of vl would you say this was stolen from, and why does the bug still crash in VL but not in mcla?
I also do not remember objecting to that (maybe i did, but in that case i obviously changed my mind), what i objected strongly to was your "mob border".
I can say in any case the bug happens somewhat regularly still on my server.
Let's move on, and both build great games, and enjoy it.
Yeah I agree, it would just be great if you guys stopped spreading misinformation like this, I recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ...
We are to the contrary even correcting people when they say things about vl that make it sound worse than it is ...
I created a wrapped with a pcall in util for get_natural_light here: https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/commit/7fe1be2c18be119c164a4ed0abf9ab113e79c603 Commit reference here. It's abundantly clear where it came from, as you were actively involved in the discussion about the issue and criticised the PR when I made it. Whether you credit it or not is a choice only you can make.
Whether it addressed the problem fully or not is hard to say, it's a difficult problem as we both know, and if it was easy, I'm sure you'd have fixed it by now.
But this was after after a period of time where you were lifting my fixes and rewriting them (sky colour when raining was another). Mob border was a seperate thing you objected to. You objected to about 5 things I did, and then eventually implemented 3 of them iirc.
As I said, not misinformation, but something said long ago, and dug up from the trash can of the past.
"recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ... " Speculation, and pretty baseless. The topic is always tiptoed around, because inevitably it results in days of drama. I have commented on multiple occassions it's positive you guys are doing what you do. There is a demand for it and more hands on these problems are always good.
I think it is fair to assume that you do not excercise more restraint on VL discord than on MT discord. Also now and then people send me screenshots of what is being said so not quite speculation or baseless ...
Whether it addressed the problem fully or not is hard to say,
As I said I get the associated error on my server somewhat regularly, it has not crashed because of it though but In VL there are 2 open bugs reports about it since afaik (one of them i linked to above).
From what I can tell the main difference is that we overwrite the minetest function and probably get all instances of it that way.
you were lifting my fixes and rewriting them (sky colour when raining was another)
I am not sure how looking at that code made you think that it was copied? It was addressing the same issue, yes but the solution is clearly not very similar.
Of course we look at the mcl2 bugtracker as that is still often relevant to us. And we also usually linked to the associated mcl2 bug reports.
In many many other cases we have indeed taken your fixes. However claiming we copied something just because we were working on the same issue is a bit much I would say.
When we cherry picked / copied something from mcl2/VL we have always done our best to credit it properly.
Me? I avoid talking about it TBH. I do not raise your project. I only respond to issues and in as blameless way as possible, otherwise, it'll always go the same way. I also know for a long time you've been in the matrix we bridge to, so claiming it's little birdies feeding you this is pointless. You'll take offence to the slightest remark and dive on to our issue tracker. We will be debating it for days while you ignore the core points until the initial points are forgotten and everyone has lost the will to bother. It ain't fun, but you seem to take great enjoyment in it. Or perhaps you have the thinnest skin in open source software and you'll get offended regardless of how mild a point was.
I'll go back to the core points.
We are on our comments for our package. You make baseless claims like more secure (which is false advertising), a review repeats these baseless claims, we'll challenge and you'll get offended and dive in because you enjoy negative reviews on the project. Drop the pointless claims that no one cares about and you'll save us all time. I mean, seriously, if you focus on everything, you focus on nothing. When you were maintainer on MineClone2, you neglected urgent optimisation to throw more features. Kelp, skulk etc. was horrific. When you had sole decision making, you failed to act, so pretending you care about that now is hollow.
I added a pcall to every reference of get_natural_light, an erroring call. I put this in the util package. You later add a pcall in to all references of get_natural_light in utils, but in a slightly different way. I never saw you use pcall before we used it in mobs, ver and here and now you are claiming you magically came up with it on your own and it's all your work. Now you're saying the fix is bad, so if it's so bad, why did you do exactly the same thing as me? Considering you rewrote most of my fixes when you forked (from before I took over rather than 0.83 may I add, because you desperately wanted to ignore that period happened, and would rather rewrite multiple releases of code to feel you always had some permanent lineage as a maintainer continuing on your new repo) with some snide comment about how bad my fixes are, demonstrates how personal it was to you, and how you resented every line of code I added, it is hard not to view it as a pattern of behaviour, but hey, if you dislike me more than merge conflicts, that's a sorry state of affairs, and one that just generates a lotta work.
Either way, I do not expect you to give credit. You're rather argue with me for months than give a line of credit to me. Yet when MineClone2++ was created as a squashed repo without the neccessary commits, you went absolutely bananas. You expect from other people what you are unwilling to do yourself. Either way, this point was to ryvnf who seems to have vanished now. He conveniently created the repo for you when you wanted it, and lets you do as you wish and take on the battles. Even with his name on the repo, it's clear it was always your project. Meanwhile, you can keep arguing it to death and distracting, but it won't divert from the obvious.
In regards to the night rain light issue. The issue was bugging me and when your very close friend Prairie was making changes to weather, I asked him if he had any idea how to resolve it. He said he and you didn't have any idea how to fix it. The moment I fix it, you rewrite and add it without giving credit or cherry pick. Hardly independent. Just rewriting again to not give credit.
Oh, and btw, I also found it funny when my PR on skyblock support gets merged 1st April, https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/pulls/4217 and you start work on a one block mod a few days later: https://codeberg.org/cora/mcl_oneblock/commits/branch/main Glad you found that inspiration.
Look, there is a difference between copying someones work (which is what I have complained about in the past) and people working on something because they maybe read one of your comments before. oneblock isn't really the same as skyblock either, may have been motivated by that, not sure, in any case you implying that's practically like copying your work because you said the word skyblock in an issue is again a bit much ...
Actually on point:
You made it about "mcla claims things". The reviewer specifically says in mcla bus get fixed quickly and in mcl2 they had a different experience.
Let's get the order of events straight here:
* Reviewer said in mcl2/vl bugs don't get fixed but in mcla they do
* You say "mcla is not more stable, it's false advertising".
The reason people may perceive mineclonia as more stable may simply be because we are quick at fixing bugs and releasing. And actually have done minor releases for critical bugs very quickly on several occasions.
Giving yourself value by diminishing others looks weak, insecure, and lame: "Fork of X with focus on stability, multiplayer performance and features."
The two of you should also give up necroposting; it's embarrassing. And you, cora, talked down the work of both maintainers after you. It's fine for programmers to do things their way, and it can be done without belittling others' work. Grow up, pick what's useful to you without passive-aggressive comments, and enjoy the results of your work.
ryvnf suggested he disagreed with my position, I raised why it was more than fair. I would have expected ryvnf to continue this conversation. You come in throwing rocks "Yeah I agree, it would just be great if you guys stopped spreading misinformation like this, I recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ... "
You cannot get personal and then accuse folk of getting personal. You also failed to counter any of the points I have made. Maybe it's time to step back from this conversation which you wasn't involved in. You could have owned the fact you didn't give credit (maybe even if it was a mistake) and it'd be fine, we move on. ryvnf could have perhaps acknowledged it and fixed it via a commit. A bit of leadership from the project leader. Though here we are... still awaiting that.
I'm still wondering why ryvnf thought it a good idea to resurrect this after it was long dead and in history. Why is he going through our reviews? Why does he care so much to support our negative reviews that are pretty historic.
I think its reasonable to respond to a comment one thinks has misinformation. I said what I wanted to say and then felt no need to engage in further discussion. I feel no need to elaborate on my points but if you believe we have misled people by not crediting VoxeLibre for changes in our changelogs you are welcome to review them.
So this wasn't a discussion about stability, but just fire out rhetoric then ignore?
I believe the examples I have given have not accurately given credit. I have reviewed, and given you (the project leader) the information. Are you going to ensure you're giving credit or not? Or is credit only given when you like folk, not for all cases like you originally stated?
Muchos piensan que es como Minecraft, pero es mucho mejor.
Solamente superado por MineClonia, que es igual pero incluye mas cosas y es mas estable, ademas MineClonia esta muy bien mantenido, MineClone no se mantiene, aunque reportes errorres no los corrigen, puedes ver algunas issues de reportes, con crashes que han sido reportados en MineClone y que han ignorado incluso cuando se les ofrecia la solución a ese crash, esto no ocurre en MineClonia.
MineClone es Software Libre y eso permitira a todos extenderlo, con mods que Minecraft solo pudo soñar.
Para hacer mods en Minecraft hizo falta que unos hackers crearan herramientas externas como Forge. Para hacer mods en MineClone tienes miles de herramientas disponibles y APIs. Todo lo que imagines lo podras hacer ;D
MineClone2 is maintained. Our new technical maintainer, Herowl is doing a great job. We had a release 4 days ago. See here for more information:
https://git.minetest.land/MineClone2/MineClone2/src/branch/master/releasenotes/0_85-the_fire_and_stone_release.md
MineClonia isn't more stable. I've seen more crashes for it, tbh. For example, they removed error handling for mobs which stopped a game from crashing when an exception happened. We added this in because mobs is immature, needs a lot of work, and is subject to a lot of change. Many of the game crashes came from it, so it made sense to add in error handling. Many of Mineclonia's features and fixes comes from MineClone2.
What a game is advertised as, and what it is, are two different things.
I think this reply contains misinformation that I want to respond to. Note that I am a maintainer of Mineclonia.
I think its bold to claim that Mineclonia is not more stable without playing the game. When crashes do occur we are quick to fix them which the reviewer noted has not always been the case for VoxeLibre. There are also lots of bugfixes in Mineclonia which has not made it into VoxeLibre, which cannot be said the other way around.
I assume you are referring to wrapping the entire mob
on_stepin apcall? That just hides problems and is a lazy way to avoid fixing anything. Also note that we did a mob refactoring before our first release so our mob code has been different from MineClone 2 the entire time.We credit MineClone 2 for all changes we backport in our changelogs. In total less than 20 % of changes comes from VoxeLibre (formely MineClone 2) and most of those are from the beginning when we forked from 0.82.0 and backported almost everything up to 0.84.0. At the point you wrote this post (2024-12-13) our 5 latest releases (0.88-0.92) had 110 changes, only 12 of which came from MineClone 2 which is barely 10 %.
(A response in 3 parts. Word count limit) This post was over 7 months ago, so surprised to see it brought back from the dead. At the point of writing, I did see more introduced crash bugs in mcla code, than I did in VL. Even if you fix them, it's still adding instability. I used to follow the repo, and in all honesty, I actually stopped because it was painful to watch. Expecting users to test your code is stable by suffering crashes is not respectful to players imho. Bugfixes is a vague term. Making something functionally correct by fixing a bug that doesn't have a crashing effect doesn't make it more stable, it just makes the functionality more beneficial. It's a positive thing to do, but not something that would make it more "stable", so I stand by the point I made.
You advertise as "Fork of MineClone 2 with focus on stability, multiplayer performance and features". The insinuation is of course that we don't and you can see it by the reviews that inevitably followed it, it had that effect. If you don't really want to have these discussions (and there are many better things we can do with our time, it just isn't helpful to a world that we're just both trying to make good experiences for players), it's worth considering if you really even need that part. We do focus on those things. Heck, when I took over as maintainer from your co-maintainer, I spent probably 6 months working only on performance fixes. The important thing is always what you do, not what you say. It may be better to focus on your brand being as a game that maps closely to Minecraft features, which is a very useful thing to have a project doing that, and is a more positive focus.
Fixing crashes you introduce doesn't make it stable. Pretending unstable code is stable and removing sensible mitigations doesn't solve the problem. You wrongly assumed it hides the problem, the solution actually puts the message in the chat so the player can see it and asks them to report the bug, the only difference is, they can keep their world in a functioning state (for example clearing mobs) and carry on playing without waiting for devs to fix the crash and release it. It was a mercy fix so players wouldn't be impacted by immature code that needed a lot more work. You may have done a refactoring before release, and it is a good thing, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. Correct refactoring doesn't change the semantic effect of the code. It's about pulling out into functions, and making code more maintainable without changing it's functional effects. If it affects the functionality, it's a rewrite. Usually, you refactor to lay the foundations, and it's the bug fixes and improvements that address the problems. To get the mobs code we both base our game on in a good state would take years, and I'm pretty sure neither of us have achieved mature enough, reliable enough code to pretend it won't crash in any circumstance.
"We credit MineClone 2 for all changes we backport in our changelogs." It's an interesting statement, but I'm not sure it's true. Did Cora credit the pcall code I added to the get_natural_light code that she objected at length in an issue on our tracker and then introduced into MCLA as her own commits months later? I've seen a few examples of my code being repurposed without credit. So when you use the word all, please try to ensure it does apply for all.
I have had very little dealings with you previously other than what I read on your issue tracker or when you came to ours (and your conduct was positive), when I've read your takes on many things, I have a good level of respect for your gameplay and technical decision making. I personally would like to move forward, as us running seperate projects that both serve a positive niche is a good thing for Minetest players. I actually refer players to mcla that want a closer to MC style of play. It's also worth considering this when PRs are taken from VL (and there has been many, especially in the initial stages), with shade being thrown at the quality before rewriting it. Not liking code and wanting to improve it and saying why is a useful thing. Labelling contributors solutions as bad or questionable (with heavy insinuation that it's really bad) is just not a nice thing. It just isn't a good look on the project you lead, and the fact you turn a blind eye to it is less than ideal.
Let's move on, and both build great games, and enjoy it.
It wasn't taken from mcl2 simple as that. I am surprised you even have it because if you do it clearly does not work !? https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/issues/4310
EDIT: for easier reference, these are the commits that added it in mcla: https://codeberg.org/mineclonia/mineclonia/commit/c3e001b1bb0b4c8d568103836b43c85d619ddbaf and then https://codeberg.org/mineclonia/mineclonia/commit/74404c5b60d731ceeea986b434d909e203766836
which part of vl would you say this was stolen from, and why does the bug still crash in VL but not in mcla? I also do not remember objecting to that (maybe i did, but in that case i obviously changed my mind), what i objected strongly to was your "mob border".
I can say in any case the bug happens somewhat regularly still on my server.
Yeah I agree, it would just be great if you guys stopped spreading misinformation like this, I recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ...
We are to the contrary even correcting people when they say things about vl that make it sound worse than it is ...
I created a wrapped with a pcall in util for get_natural_light here: https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/commit/7fe1be2c18be119c164a4ed0abf9ab113e79c603 Commit reference here. It's abundantly clear where it came from, as you were actively involved in the discussion about the issue and criticised the PR when I made it. Whether you credit it or not is a choice only you can make.
Whether it addressed the problem fully or not is hard to say, it's a difficult problem as we both know, and if it was easy, I'm sure you'd have fixed it by now.
But this was after after a period of time where you were lifting my fixes and rewriting them (sky colour when raining was another). Mob border was a seperate thing you objected to. You objected to about 5 things I did, and then eventually implemented 3 of them iirc.
As I said, not misinformation, but something said long ago, and dug up from the trash can of the past.
"recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ... " Speculation, and pretty baseless. The topic is always tiptoed around, because inevitably it results in days of drama. I have commented on multiple occassions it's positive you guys are doing what you do. There is a demand for it and more hands on these problems are always good.
I think it is fair to assume that you do not excercise more restraint on VL discord than on MT discord. Also now and then people send me screenshots of what is being said so not quite speculation or baseless ...
As I said I get the associated error on my server somewhat regularly, it has not crashed because of it though but In VL there are 2 open bugs reports about it since afaik (one of them i linked to above). From what I can tell the main difference is that we overwrite the minetest function and probably get all instances of it that way.
For comparison yours: https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/commit/61a4595c1b07a65402abc98cf74f6adac13153b7 ours: https://codeberg.org/mineclonia/mineclonia/commit/fed3bcd5dc6a111b72ab24a34fecd3d9f09c620d
I am not sure how looking at that code made you think that it was copied? It was addressing the same issue, yes but the solution is clearly not very similar.
Of course we look at the mcl2 bugtracker as that is still often relevant to us. And we also usually linked to the associated mcl2 bug reports.
In many many other cases we have indeed taken your fixes. However claiming we copied something just because we were working on the same issue is a bit much I would say.
When we cherry picked / copied something from mcl2/VL we have always done our best to credit it properly.
Me? I avoid talking about it TBH. I do not raise your project. I only respond to issues and in as blameless way as possible, otherwise, it'll always go the same way. I also know for a long time you've been in the matrix we bridge to, so claiming it's little birdies feeding you this is pointless. You'll take offence to the slightest remark and dive on to our issue tracker. We will be debating it for days while you ignore the core points until the initial points are forgotten and everyone has lost the will to bother. It ain't fun, but you seem to take great enjoyment in it. Or perhaps you have the thinnest skin in open source software and you'll get offended regardless of how mild a point was.
I'll go back to the core points.
We are on our comments for our package. You make baseless claims like more secure (which is false advertising), a review repeats these baseless claims, we'll challenge and you'll get offended and dive in because you enjoy negative reviews on the project. Drop the pointless claims that no one cares about and you'll save us all time. I mean, seriously, if you focus on everything, you focus on nothing. When you were maintainer on MineClone2, you neglected urgent optimisation to throw more features. Kelp, skulk etc. was horrific. When you had sole decision making, you failed to act, so pretending you care about that now is hollow.
I added a pcall to every reference of get_natural_light, an erroring call. I put this in the util package. You later add a pcall in to all references of get_natural_light in utils, but in a slightly different way. I never saw you use pcall before we used it in mobs, ver and here and now you are claiming you magically came up with it on your own and it's all your work. Now you're saying the fix is bad, so if it's so bad, why did you do exactly the same thing as me? Considering you rewrote most of my fixes when you forked (from before I took over rather than 0.83 may I add, because you desperately wanted to ignore that period happened, and would rather rewrite multiple releases of code to feel you always had some permanent lineage as a maintainer continuing on your new repo) with some snide comment about how bad my fixes are, demonstrates how personal it was to you, and how you resented every line of code I added, it is hard not to view it as a pattern of behaviour, but hey, if you dislike me more than merge conflicts, that's a sorry state of affairs, and one that just generates a lotta work.
Either way, I do not expect you to give credit. You're rather argue with me for months than give a line of credit to me. Yet when MineClone2++ was created as a squashed repo without the neccessary commits, you went absolutely bananas. You expect from other people what you are unwilling to do yourself. Either way, this point was to ryvnf who seems to have vanished now. He conveniently created the repo for you when you wanted it, and lets you do as you wish and take on the battles. Even with his name on the repo, it's clear it was always your project. Meanwhile, you can keep arguing it to death and distracting, but it won't divert from the obvious.
In regards to the night rain light issue. The issue was bugging me and when your very close friend Prairie was making changes to weather, I asked him if he had any idea how to resolve it. He said he and you didn't have any idea how to fix it. The moment I fix it, you rewrite and add it without giving credit or cherry pick. Hardly independent. Just rewriting again to not give credit.
Oh, and btw, I also found it funny when my PR on skyblock support gets merged 1st April, https://git.minetest.land/VoxeLibre/VoxeLibre/pulls/4217 and you start work on a one block mod a few days later: https://codeberg.org/cora/mcl_oneblock/commits/branch/main Glad you found that inspiration.
Look, there is a difference between copying someones work (which is what I have complained about in the past) and people working on something because they maybe read one of your comments before. oneblock isn't really the same as skyblock either, may have been motivated by that, not sure, in any case you implying that's practically like copying your work because you said the word skyblock in an issue is again a bit much ...
Actually on point: You made it about "mcla claims things". The reviewer specifically says in mcla bus get fixed quickly and in mcl2 they had a different experience.
Let's get the order of events straight here: * Reviewer said in mcl2/vl bugs don't get fixed but in mcla they do * You say "mcla is not more stable, it's false advertising".
The reason people may perceive mineclonia as more stable may simply be because we are quick at fixing bugs and releasing. And actually have done minor releases for critical bugs very quickly on several occasions.
Giving yourself value by diminishing others looks weak, insecure, and lame: "Fork of X with focus on stability, multiplayer performance and features."
The two of you should also give up necroposting; it's embarrassing. And you, cora, talked down the work of both maintainers after you. It's fine for programmers to do things their way, and it can be done without belittling others' work. Grow up, pick what's useful to you without passive-aggressive comments, and enjoy the results of your work.
Idk, as far as I can see both ryvnf and the original poster have criticized pretty specific things.
I see a lot of generalized and personal statements both from ancient and now you without addressing the criticism at all.
ryvnf suggested he disagreed with my position, I raised why it was more than fair. I would have expected ryvnf to continue this conversation. You come in throwing rocks "Yeah I agree, it would just be great if you guys stopped spreading misinformation like this, I recently rejoined mt discord and searched for mineclonia out of interest ... and I'm pretty sure it goes up a level if one were to search on vl discord ... "
You cannot get personal and then accuse folk of getting personal. You also failed to counter any of the points I have made. Maybe it's time to step back from this conversation which you wasn't involved in. You could have owned the fact you didn't give credit (maybe even if it was a mistake) and it'd be fine, we move on. ryvnf could have perhaps acknowledged it and fixed it via a commit. A bit of leadership from the project leader. Though here we are... still awaiting that.
I'm still wondering why ryvnf thought it a good idea to resurrect this after it was long dead and in history. Why is he going through our reviews? Why does he care so much to support our negative reviews that are pretty historic.
Insecurity.
I think its reasonable to respond to a comment one thinks has misinformation. I said what I wanted to say and then felt no need to engage in further discussion. I feel no need to elaborate on my points but if you believe we have misled people by not crediting VoxeLibre for changes in our changelogs you are welcome to review them.
So this wasn't a discussion about stability, but just fire out rhetoric then ignore?
I believe the examples I have given have not accurately given credit. I have reviewed, and given you (the project leader) the information. Are you going to ensure you're giving credit or not? Or is credit only given when you like folk, not for all cases like you originally stated?
converted review into a thread