/tg/Station 13

This isn't about trying to bring the groups together in friendship and harmony or anything, I'm just pretty new here and I'd like a succinct explanation if I could get one, and maybe for anyone else who needs a summary.

I don't need to hear about the struggles and drama behind it, I think I've got the gist of that, I'd just like to know the current functional difference between the two if I'm an aspiring coder and want to make changes or additions to the game.

Presumably on NT code, I code something, I submit a PR and create a forum thread about it with a poll, if the poll is voted yes and the PR is viewed as good and useful, the change is implemented. Anybody who wants to submit a PR can at any time and has an equal chance of getting their code accepted, even a new shmuck like me.

How does this differ on coderbus (if at all)? If I as a new guy code a new feature, what happens? Let's say the feature is a vanity inventory slot with some starting vanity items, because that's actually what I'm interested in working toward. How does the process of submitting that differ?

Just looking at the way it works on the main git page, it seems it may as well be identical?

for coderbus, you just make the pr, it gets reviewed, and if they like it, it's merged

The main difference is the people in charge of making the changes? From what I understand, NT is an attempt for those people to be more in tune with the players and/or include more players in the decision making process?

Or is it more the speed that requests get merged?

/tg/station is more focused on code quality, and is judged by github members, with final say belonging to maintainers.

NTStation has more lax quality standards, but often requires players' approval if your changes are sufficiently big.

Optimally if you write proper code that people want and is practical, interesting, and well contained you should be able to submit the pull to both codebases and get them merged despite the differences between their review processes

Almost everything submited to TG (coderbus) eventually ends up on NT but the reverse is only occasionally true. If you're looking for get your code on as much server space as possible submit to TG. Likewise if you're a new coder you're apt to get better tips and support from TG/coderbus because a lot of the people there have been coding for the game for a long time and several have formal education in these sorts of things.

The process is the same for submitting a pull to either so try them both. You'll have to defend yourself more on TG but if you work with the comments your given you'll find that you end up with superior code that is far more likely to stand tall against scrutiny and less prone to bugs down the line.

Incoming wrote:If you're looking for get your code on as much server space as possible submit to TG

Specifically, if you're looking to get your code on as much server space as possible and aren't looking to piss off the players with it. Most of the stuff from /tg/ gets ported to NT because the players don't mind it, and there's a good reason for every /tg/station feature that wasn't merged to NT not to be.

Thanks for the explanation, that's mostly what I wanted to know, whether I should submit to both or not.

Honestly at least at the moment it sounds like it's a good thing that there are two options. Things that one codebase might be unsure of at first gets live testing on the other side, and if it's good then both end up with it, and if it's bad then it can be rolled back.

Different people maintaining the forks and different review processes. Literally the only functional difference. A surprisingly acute difference for the mess that gave birth to it.

But yes, please do feel welcome to open PRs to both forks. If the idea and execution is good enough it'll be pulled across anyway.

Stephie wrote:/tg/station is more focused on code quality, and is judged by github members, with final say belonging to maintainers.

lolno
LOLNO

maintainers can onl ydeny a pr based on code quality, not personal taste. Maintainers that don't like a thing often won't merge said thing, but that doesn't mean that they'll close it. The only people allowed to deny a PR based on it's content are headcoders.

What about Malkevin's cult back when it was Adrix's, and Tenebrosity's pulls that were closed, only to be implemented in a very similar way weeks later (such as wizard hats falling off)? And maybe maintainers won't deny a PR based on personal taste, but they can approve it, regardless of what half of the comments say. See the "I lost, pls nerf" pull request, which, I believe, you even commented on.

Stephie wrote:What about Malkevin's cult back when it was Adrix's, and Tenebrosity's pulls that were closed, only to be implemented in a very similar way weeks later (such as wizard hats falling off)? And maybe maintainers won't deny a PR based on personal taste, but they can approve it, regardless of what half of the comments say. See the "I lost, pls nerf" pull request, which, I believe, you even commented on.

Flamebaiting.

Not really. He disagreed, so I'm trying to prove my earlier point with examples.

The difference is, it doesn't matter if your idea is shit, it will probably get merged to tgstation. Actual players have no say in it, the ones who have to put up with crappy game changes. "Can't eat through masks" is just one example. A simple rule of requiring the community to vote on it would leave it up to the player base to decide what "features" get added to the game.

Scott wrote:The difference is, it doesn't matter if your idea is shit, it will probably get merged to tgstation. Actual players have no say in it, the ones who have to put up with crappy game changes. "Can't eat through masks" is just one example. A simple rule of requiring the community to vote on it would leave it up to the player base to decide what "features" get added to the game.

This has always been my problem with TGStation and Coderbus - Minimal to no player input. Plenty of good ideas passed over, plenty of bad ideas going through. The feeling like the "Ideas" subforum was completely pointless, because nothing posted in it ever went in. Plenty of changes blindsiding the playerbase, and a significant, noticable disconnect between the playerbase and the people in charge of the code. The maintainers, the head coders, whomever - I'm not even sure.

Thread is deteriorating to us vs them.