01:39 < Ryozuki> now cloning is lot faster
01:46 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] Ryozuki opened pull request #797: Add ddnet-libs as a submodule (master...pr_ddnet_lib_submodule) https://git.io/v7edr
01:47 < Ryozuki> ^
04:41 < eeeee> wait what
04:42 < eeeee> did you just copy refactor to trunk again
04:50 < eeeee> deen: is there a way we can revert that back and discuss it more? i think moving external libs to a submodule but keeping existing history would be a better solution
04:51 < eeeee> saving a couple hundred megs isn't worth the extra pain in the ass while blaming imo
05:06 < eeeee> and if size really is a problem for someone, they can do shallow clone which would be pretty similar to this "cleaned up" repo
07:08 < Learath2> given we have no common point in history all our branches are now un-mergeable with master :/
07:10 < eeeee> well you can just rebase to the head of ddnet-old then cherry-pick into first commit in new and then merge or keep rebasing
07:10 < Learath2> well rebase also uses a common history point
07:10 < Learath2> oic
07:11 < Learath2> "just"
07:11 < eeeee> it's a good git excercise but kinda annoying otherwise :D
08:12 <@deen> eeeee: no one shallow-clones in my experience
08:12 <@deen> so they would keep complaining about huge size of repo
08:23 < Learath2> for the record heinrich5991 was the first person complaining about the repo size i've seen in the last 5 years
08:23 < Learath2> fwiw as i wasn't around for some of those 5 years
08:49 <@deen> I remember people complaining to me personally
08:51 <@deen> anyway, I guess we can switch back to full repo and tell people to shallow clone
08:51 <@deen> apparently you can even make PRs with recent versions of git with shallow clones.
10:20 <@heinrich5991> I have repo version stripped of all binaries and data files
10:20 <@heinrich5991> with still the full source history
10:20 <@heinrich5991> 8.2 MB
10:21 <@heinrich5991> would that be desirable?
10:22 < ddnet-discord> <FluffiexD> no
10:24 < ddnet-discord> <Ryozuki> i got a version with full history i think
10:24 < ddnet-discord> <Ryozuki> but it was not updated to last version
10:24 <@heinrich5991> (nothing was thrown away, see https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet-old/
10:24 <@heinrich5991> )
10:25 < ddnet-discord> <Ryozuki> ah
10:25 <@heinrich5991> Ryozuki: the point of my question was rather whether that might be a good starting point for a new repo
10:25 <@heinrich5991> eeeee: ^
10:25 < Ryozuki> i guess it's good then
10:32 <@deen> it could still be desirable to have the old history in ddnet repo directly
10:33 <@heinrich5991> yes, that would be it, but without data files etc.
10:33 <@deen> but we can't use that for anything useful
10:33 <@deen> since you can't rebuild the releases for it for example
10:33 <@heinrich5991> yes
10:33 <@heinrich5991> but we can use git blame
10:34 <@deen> ah, you mean putting that under the current ddnet
10:34 <@heinrich5991> yep
10:34 <@deen> that sounds like it could cause quite some confusion
10:34 <@deen> with the same commit messages in ddnet and ddnet-old but with different ids
10:35 <@heinrich5991> steps to reproduce the smaller repo:
10:35 <@heinrich5991> git clone --mirror https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet-old.git
10:35 <@heinrich5991> bfg --no-blob-protection --delete-folders '{backup,data,docs,fonts,opus,other,portaudio,tilesets,versions,TEMP}' --delete-files '*.{exe,ttf}'
10:35 <@heinrich5991> this gives you a commit id map as well
10:35 <@heinrich5991> still confusing, but resolvable
10:36 <@heinrich5991> https://rtyley.github.io/bfg-repo-cleaner/
20:55 < ddnet-discord> <jao> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/337668770573189120/deep-bug.demo
20:55 < ddnet-discord> <jao> @deen @Learath2 Tropo gets deep even tho he should tower on BumM.. pretty lame bug and they failed a 200+min run on Tatooine 2
20:59 < ddnet-discord> <Rico> He clipped into bumm. Saf
21:00 < ddnet-discord> <Rico> Did tropo have weak or strong bumm?
21:03 < ddnet-discord> <jao> weak
21:41 <@deen> So what's the best way forward for the ddnet repo?
21:42 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> do not change anything
21:42 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> less work
21:43 <@deen> 1. Keep separate ddnet-old with old history
21:43 <@deen> 2. Keep full history, 300 MB full clone, small shallow clone, can git blame, can build old versions
21:43 <@deen> 3. Keep old history but with removed libs, small full clone, can git blame, can't build old versions
21:43 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> 2.
21:43 <@deen> but I did 1. already
21:44 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> How hard is to compile ddnet now? For non-experienced user?
21:44 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> i mean, not everycode have big experience with git
21:44 <@deen> as hard as before, except you have to download one more repo
21:44 <@deen> well, if you can download ddnet repo, you will manage to download ddnet-libs too
21:44 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> then stay as it is nwo
21:45 <@deen> that has nothing to do with it
21:45 <@deen> not sure what you're talking about
21:45 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> you need libs to compile ?
21:45 <@deen> the current state would not change with any of the alternatives
21:45 <@deen> you need libs if you don't have them installed on your system or you want to build releases
21:45 <@deen> ideally you install them on your system and your package manager keeps them updated
21:46 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> i mean, maybe people wouldn't know what to do with seperated libs or something, if they don't know how to connect them. But probably you will describe this so
21:46 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> you need everything on Windows (Y0
21:46 <@deen> i have separated libs already and will not reverse that, what are you talking about?
21:46 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> (y) 😄
21:51 < ddnet-discord> <Savander> Nevermind, maybe and misunderstood something. I was talking about those libs: https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet-old/tree/fed747b9a0baf92f627cfaa42245ef99ce86e441/other  They are neccessary for win i guess. Couldn't compile without them, but if you made it easy to move them to the right place, then nevermind 😉
21:52 <@deen> ah, for building old versions?
21:52 <@deen> with solution 3?
21:57 <@deen> I don't like solution 3 anyway
22:10 <@heinrich5991> the problem with 3 is that we have another "copied refactor to trunk"
22:30 <@deen> so the question is if we're ok with carrying around the 300 MB history for everyone who makes a full clone
22:34 <@deen> heinrich5991: since you're the one who complained, any thoughts on that?
22:35 <@heinrich5991> I was mainly against adding even more binaries, I'm equally ok with 2 & 3
22:35 <@heinrich5991> 2 is good because we don't invalidate any references
22:35 <@deen> ok
22:36 <@deen> so I'll do 2 now
22:36 <@heinrich5991> 3 is good because we don't carry our historical size
22:36 <@heinrich5991> thanks!
22:37 <@deen> and should we use submodule? https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/pull/797
22:38 < eeeee> i think 3 is definitely a big improvement on 1, but i'd vote for 2+submodule anyway
22:38 <@heinrich5991> submodule vs what?
22:38 <@heinrich5991> probably http download
22:39 < eeeee> dunno what are other options really. but github seems to support submodules nicely so that's a plus
22:40 <@heinrich5991> yes, but have we gained anything then?
22:40 <@heinrich5991> ah
22:40 < eeeee> we have stopped the repo from growing even bigger
22:41 <@heinrich5991> my thoughts a few seconds ago: but we still have a repo we have to download anyway
22:41 <@heinrich5991> but there seems to be an option to recommend doing a shallow clone of the submodule
22:41 <@heinrich5991> saved by the bell
22:41 <@heinrich5991> https://stackoverflow.com/a/38895397/870079
22:41 <@heinrich5991> ignore the second to last line
22:41 < eeeee> can intergrate that into the build system, make it auto shallow clone submodule if missing
22:42 <@heinrich5991> git config -f .gitmodules submodule.<name>.shallow true
22:42 <@heinrich5991> that way it is integrated into git
22:42 < eeeee> oh, cool
23:07 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] def- closed pull request #797: Add ddnet-libs as a submodule (master...pr_ddnet_lib_submodule) https://git.io/v7edr
23:09 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] def- force-pushed master from a4752e7 to 41d9de9: https://git.io/vsyfY
23:09 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 73aa9b7 Magnus Auvinen: started the major restructure of svn
23:09 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 15c9578 Magnus Auvinen: moved more stuff
23:09 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 90bcda3 Magnus Auvinen: move even more stuff
23:11 <@deen> oh, more than 10 years of history, nice
23:15 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] def- pushed 1 new commit to master: https://git.io/v7JRL
23:15 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master f34c6f5 def: New try at adding submodule
23:34 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] def- pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/v7JEH
23:34 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 0b90cef def: Update instructions
23:34 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 886be97 def: Try to fix automated builds with submodule
23:52 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] def- pushed 1 new commit to master: https://git.io/v7JzA
23:52 < ddnet-commits> ddnet/master 1683b71 def: Try to fix cmake for windows
23:56 <@deen> Anyone want to fix the cmake build on windows? https://ci.appveyor.com/project/def-/ddnet
23:57 < Spongebob> me