And now we have git.

What do you want to see in Armagetron soon? Any new feature ideas? Let's ponder these ground breaking ideas...
User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11220
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by Z-Man » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:10 am

Added github:
https://github.com/ArmagetronAd

There and on gitlab, in the armagetronad module, I added a bunch of new branches: (lp: not followed by ~ is short for lp:~/armagetronad-dev/armagetronad/) Branch names in bold.

feature-fortress-ai mirrors lp:0.4-armagetronad-fortress_ai which is derived from lp:trunk-armagetronad-fortress_ai. That's the experimental fortress AI. I mostly abandoned it because at one point, merging from the mainline became a nightmare. Now that the branch is converted, I discovered the reason (short version: bzr doesn't handle criss-cross merges very well) and corrected it.

feature-cmake mirrors lp:0.4-armagetronad-cmake which is derived from lp:trunk-cmake. That was a whole other nightmare. trunk-cmake is stacked on trunk-armagetronad-work, but both branches are in different formats. Because both are broken, neither can be upgraded, and fetching a copy failed. Combining them into one non-stacked branch on the lp servers would be possible, for example if lp merge requests could be executed on the servers... but they can't. Luckily, I found a local copy between the sofa cushions.

Let's say my opinion of lp in particular and bzr in general has not improved in the past week. While it was probably bzr-svn that caused the corruption, lp should not have allowed broken branches to be uploaded.

The hack-0.2.8- branches are synced from the relevant famous ap/ct/sty branches. I only tested the plain sty one, it seems to be possible to merge from master with a non-overwhelming amount of conflicts. sty+ct+ap gets 109 by gits count. Could be worse!

kyle gave be some bzr branches to move over from being related to trunk-armagetronad-work or 0.4-armagetronad-work to the new 0.4-armagetronad, namely
lp:~armagetronad-sty-0.3/armagetronad/armagetronad-v2sty
lp:~armagetronad-ct/armagetronad/armagetronad-ct
lp:~armagetronad-ct/armagetronad/armagetronad-ct-ladderlog
The transformed git branches are lp:~z-man/armagetronad/0.4-(old branch name)-unified, the git branches are hack-(old branch name without armagetronad-).

lp:~armagetronad-ct/armagetronad/0.4-delaycmd has become feature-delaycmd.
Looks like a single feature? Should I transform that to a pull request and merge into master directly? I'm just going by the title and the small history at the moment :)

Yeah, that's a lot of branches. We should probably merge them or abandon them soonish.

I'm currently the only one with write access on github and gitlab. Two reasons for that: I don't know any of your logins there, and I'd like to try the model where only half a handful of maintainers have direct write access and regular and irregular devs alike submit pull/merge requests (to master, not legacy_0.2.8, obv) from their private copies of the repositories. The maintainers' own work would go the same route (already practiced), and ideally, they'd check each other's work. Thoughts? Pull/Merge requests? Maintainer volunteers? No need to hurry, at the current pace, I can do the job alone :) (And existing devs can always push to bzr, I'm not going to take that away, lp's bzr merge requests are a bit unwieldy)

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by kyle » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:46 am

Thanks for the help on those.
My commits in the github branches now show up as me

I can't believe it's been 9 years since I touched some of these branches.

I think I'll fork the delay command and add some usage to it an create a PR.

I know the zonesv2 branch works, but I think there were still some issues with it.
Image

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by Ratchet » Fri May 10, 2019 3:43 am

For what it's worth, I've always been quite interested in "tinkering" with the code to see how it works and to learn how to make changes. The old way of cloning the repository was very non-intuitive for an outsider, and to be honest I don't even think I could do it in less than 10 minutes today. SVN/bzr/whatever it was just didn't feel very user-friendly to me and it was intimidating. Now that it's hosted on GitHub, something I am familiar with and use myself, I feel much more empowered to obtain the code and to contribute. Even today, when I no longer play the game, I'm intrigued and interested in cloning the repository to see if I could help out.

One thing that I've always struggled with is the seemingly insurmountable errors that come up when trying to build. I realize that I was lacking maturity and problem-solving skills in my adolescent years, but it was a quite complex process to get the game built and running. If someone would be so kind to set up a VM or something and record a video doing a 0-to-100 tutorial on building from source (including obtaining the relevant tools), it would really help someone like me who just doesn't know what tools to use and how to set them up. The tool setup process feels like 80% of the battle for me.

I realize this is a wishlist item and no one really has the time to do it, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6198
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by sinewav » Fri May 10, 2019 5:56 am

Ratchet wrote:If someone would be so kind to set up a VM or something and record a video doing a 0-to-100 tutorial on building from source (including obtaining the relevant tools), it would really help someone like me who just doesn't know what tools to use and how to set them up. The tool setup process feels like 80% of the battle for me.
What OS are you running? I've been on Ubuntu the past decade and building has always been straightforward, simply running the commands at the very bottom of the wiki page (Get Dependencies) This last time I built from source, just a few weeks ago, I had a problem with SDL and got pretty much immediate feedback on these forums and was playing Arma in no time.

I think the general way to build Arma (or most things) is download the source, change into that directory, bootstrap it, then run configure. The output of configure will warn you of missing libraries. If everything is OK, run the program make to compile. Sure there are a lot of things that can go wrong, but that's the fun part, right! :P

If you're on Ubuntu I can make a video, but I barely know what I'm doing, and I've talked to you enough times to know you're smarter than me.

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by Ratchet » Fri May 10, 2019 3:42 pm

Right, sorry, I forgot that ArmagetronAd has a large unix userbase :D

I'm still a Windows pleb. A demonstration in Win10 would be ideal. I remember having to download Code::Blocks with MinGW and fight a few hundred build errors to get everything going. I think I actually succeeded once, but I'm pretty sure that I had to comment out some things that were probably critical just to suppress the errors. Performance also kinda sucked -- I, too, had SDL issues somewhere along the way.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
aP|Nelg
Match Winner
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:22 pm
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by aP|Nelg » Sat May 11, 2019 4:12 pm

Ratchet wrote:The old way of cloning the repository was very non-intuitive for an outsider, and to be honest I don't even think I could do it in less than 10 minutes today. SVN/bzr/whatever it was just didn't feel very user-friendly to me and it was intimidating. Now that it's hosted on GitHub, something I am familiar with and use myself, I feel much more empowered to obtain the code and to contribute.
`git clone` vs `bzr branch` vs `svn checkout`

Also, you can grab the source straight off both launchpad as well: On one of the "Code" pages (ex 0.2.9-armagetronad-sty+ct+ap) scroll down and click on the latest revision, then click "Download tarball".
Or, if you don't want to scroll, click "Browse Files" > "View Revision" > "Download Tarball"
Ratchet wrote:I'm still a Windows pleb. A demonstration in Win10 would be ideal. I remember having to download Code::Blocks with MinGW and fight a few hundred build errors to get everything going. I think I actually succeeded once, but I'm pretty sure that I had to comment out some things that were probably critical just to suppress the errors. Performance also kinda sucked -- I, too, had SDL issues somewhere along the way.
You can probably cross-compile (using mingw) with Cygwin or the Linux Subsystem for Windows as well, although I haven't tried it yet.
Also, random sidenote, the steps to follow are pretty much the same across every Windows version, I would guess NT 4 and newer.

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: And now we have git.

Post by compguygene » Sat May 11, 2019 10:16 pm

Z-Man wrote:Added github:

feature-fortress-ai mirrors lp:0.4-armagetronad-fortress_ai which is derived from lp:trunk-armagetronad-fortress_ai. That's the experimental fortress AI. I mostly abandoned it because at one point, merging from the mainline became a nightmare. Now that the branch is converted, I discovered the reason (short version: bzr doesn't handle criss-cross merges very well) and corrected it.
Well, I am very excited! I will be setting up my Fortress Vs Bots server again. I also will build a new sumo server. First I have to setup my new vps for that.....
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

Post Reply