Open Letter to L2J non-friendly forks

[Aikimaniac]

so the TRAC thingy will stay that way? Or it will be back to normal when you enable accounts there?

we do not plan to enable register into trac or svn in any way for normal users and for now the trac view stays like it is for now as well...

[bigbro]

I wish to thank you for WinMerge software. It help me a lot.

[jurchiks]

who are you thanking? nobody mentioned WinMerge in this thread...

[Aikimaniac]

who are you thanking? nobody mentioned WinMerge in this thread...

compare his and your spam level in this forums..

[jurchiks]

riiiiight...

[yuri]

so the TRAC thingy will stay that way? Or it will be back to normal when you enable accounts there?

we do not plan to enable register into trac or svn in any way for normal users and for now the trac view stays like it is for now as well...

OK, so now, how can I access the source code to use and make contribs?

[Aikimaniac]

so the TRAC thingy will stay that way? Or it will be back to normal when you enable accounts there?

we do not plan to enable register into trac or svn in any way for normal users and for now the trac view stays like it is for now as well...

OK, so now, how can I access the source code to use and make contribs?

like before...download from SVN viac Eclipse or Tortoise and check there for changes..if youre able to create contribs, youre able for sure to follow changes..

[yuri]

OK, thank you.

But, if the SVN still working normal. What prevents the bad forkers to still stolen our work?

The only thing that the don't use of the open trac system protect us is against the lammers. Because anyone that know how to use an subversion system and DIFF tools can see the differences between builds.

So the closure of the trac doesn't disturb us more than they? Because they will still using our code and will still writing "sync with the L2J" in their trac system.

I know that we don't just close the access to the code, because if we do it, we will loose the sporadic users contribs like me and others members of the forum. But just close the trac is disturb more for us than for the bad forkers that don't want to know what was modified, the just want to use our main code.

I doubt that these forks has made any greater modification in the code, so they just take our main code line and apply their patchs to it. Doesn't mater what was modified, they only need to verify if the things that their patchs fix/modify was made by us and change the parts of the patchs to apply in the new code.

[sync]

lol
All right!)

[Intrepid]

Strange move but anyway i guess thats a like it good dont like it leave it situation.Anyway i just want to say a few things why this move have much of a negative impact than a positive.

1st the diff view restriction:Useless move makes trac useless at all everyone can switch to tortoise svn or the eclipse history view to check the updates so if this case is up to stay for a long time than why the trac is hosted for?

2nd the monthly update:To judge that move need to understand why it has been done.About the non friendly forks...do my memorys correct when i say l2j refused NB4L1 when he tried to make a collaboration beetwen l2j and l2jfree?So when you say non friendly forks its a bit weird since i dont see any other worthy open source fork out there.About the sells i have only 1 thing to say...its because of you(developers)you see the reason why ppl sell l2j based packs is its actually easy to improve without having huge knowledge,not because of its so great or stuff like that its simple because of ppl can make 100-120 changeset easily and there are many ppl out there mostly greeks(in reference of mxc) who have absolutely no clue what they pay for.About forking l2j its the same ppl can make 100-120 changeset easily so they hype up their fork and thats all the fork die after that(i have seen 20-30 or even more forks like that its not a new thing).

From the view of make the forks work a living hell you did a great job i give you that it worked, but in the meantime you made your users work a living hell with the pack too. You see now with that move everyone who want to have just a littlebit of special server screwed because of the way changesets released.You did killed the actual reason why ppl love l2j so much and thats the daily update and active work.There are other ways to satisfy your needs and the users needs too and its not even hard.

This is just my opinion its not an ultimatum like "fuck all of you l2j is dead" or stuff like that its really childish but i do think there are others ways to make things work.

[Aikimaniac]

RE 2) yes ...youre wrong...L2J did not received any proposal of cooperation... that dude just tried to convince other forks to not use L2J as base but L2Jfree as he wrote "So I would say the base should be the project with the most changed/reworked/implemented things - I guess currently it is l2j-free, but who knows"...

[Intrepid]

RE 2) yes ...youre wrong...L2J did not received any proposal of cooperation... that dude just tried to convince other forks to not use L2J as base but L2Jfree as he wrote "So I would say the base should be the project with the most changed/reworked/implemented things - I guess currently it is l2j-free, but who knows"...

Well truth be told l2jfree actually have much more stuff implemented with overall better performance and much better protection.But that leads to the other thing that actually make this a paradox since the open letter states everyone fork l2j packs and thats an issue right?Than whats the problem with someone who want it to be not forked instead he want to have ppl who actually use l2jfree as a base?

And About im beeing wrong with this well as far as i know 1 side said use l2jfree as a base because its better and the other side said implement your l2jfree changes(rofl) to l2j which makes no sense since since they actually sync l2j and l2j dont sync l2jfree.

And if you want to answer with ahh yes but its not better than l2j well just think about that l2jfree have ch sieges done since 14months, hellbound done since ages, other instance too,packet queue done since ages,many many skill data based on a client parser which they wrote and many other things.Point beeing when you talk about non friendly forks i dont see anyí fork which you could talk about(worthy forks).

So still the case is beeing ignorant for worse of the project.

[_DS_]

Truth is: we dont care about l2jfree. At all. Please try to understand it and stop stupid flame.

[Intrepid]

Truth is: we dont care about l2jfree. At all. Please try to understand it and stop stupid flame.

That was not a flame it was not even close okay thats a correct answer but than question still remains what non friendly forks enforce the team to make such things since there are absolutely no worthy open source forks other than this 2.If you would say "we are tired from all this and we do that and that for no apparent reason besides of we dont care" is not the same like "we are getting leeched and everyone constantly ignore our messages so we do that and that again for no apparent reason but it sounds better to blame others"

If you take that as a flame bad for you since its not a flame its just curiousity why this step was necessary in that way.

[_DS_]

"Open letter" is a declaration of some sort, and disabling file view in trac - way to force people to read it.
Anyone with more than 20g brain weight can get changesets from SVN, so only real dummies was harmed (and complain).

Really much worse thing is not a disabling of the FILE_VIEW, but committing all in one huge changeset.