TotalFreedomMod Issues

I personally think the workflow should be changed. Now I'm not trying to put words in Paldiu's mouth but it even seems like he's disgruntled with the workflow. I don't want to throw anyone under the bus or blame anyone, but Wild was the one who setup the workflows and ultimately has control. I agree it should be Paldiu's decision and not Wilds, but wild owns the org. Wild genuinely seems to be unwilling to change the workflow but I feel like it would be much better if Paldiu was making the decision, because y'know, he's the lead dev

I know TF isn't your usual place and I've only been here for \~15 months, but I think the development model should be:

Community asks for features or reports problems → the owner approves and puts priority on each issue → The ELD plans the work → the developers deliver

If this isn't similar to what typical MC servers do, please let me know.

Quote

↩  Tizz the owner approves and puts priority on each issue

the owner has chosen not to listen to community feedback and get rid of NM,

Quote

↩  Tizz Community asks for features or reports problems →

and therefore this system you have outlined is fundamentally flawed from the beginning

While I am trying to take time away, given this is a conversation I've had this week with Paldiu on MS Teams and I seem to be getting a substantial amount of the blame here I am going to try to defend myself, because going "Owner workflow big bad that why we do 0 work" doesn't fly.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood the owner has chosen not to listen to community feedback and get rid of NM,

https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/217-prioriti…he-future-of-tf

Quote

↩  taah The issue with having the suggestion go through the owner first is because with all due respect to Wild, he’s sometimes on his own page.

Ultimately the owner is the one that decides the direction of the game-mode, while I owned the Freedom game-mode myself, that was down to me, now Steven has taken on that mantle it's his direction the server will take and he can choose to be policed 100% by community or not, but we know (State of TFM being a prime example) of when the community gets their own way, it often is not in the longer term interest of the server, but for a sub-set of the current players.

Workflow wise (As there's a few posts). I assume we're talking the actual development workflow, because that's what people have taken issue with, and frankly as Paldiu I believe agreed with me on Teams, people are making a mountain out of a molehill. For day to day developers, it's as simple as branch off of our "Development" branch, write your code, build and then test it, and submit a pull request to the development branch to add your feature. That's it. As long as it builds and doesn't introduce security issues or get flagged by static analysis as being poor code, someone else just needs to peer review it and merge it (Doesn't have to be me / ELD it just needs to be a developer so we don't have people pushing code).

When we want to cut a release, I've made it a tiny bit more complex by creating release branches because I didn't want to get fucked if we needed to produce a bug patch only but ultimately it's a case of PR'ing from development to main (Or what I've done is branch off Development to a release branch, and PR that into main but the result is ultimately the same this just means you could cut later bug releases without partial features / sets of features being released).

It's not tricky, and it's far easier than it ever was when TFM Was originally being written. A few people are upset because this means they can't write un-tested code and push it straight onto the server, which was happening a lot back before I took over and when I first took over as the owner, and one thing the community at the time really wanted was a degree of standards when it comes to making sure we don't keep putting shit code on the server and seeing what sticks.

It should not be hard to

1) Write some code
2) Test it fucking works
3) Raise a Pull request
4) Have anyone else in the dev team review it
5) Done.

If we're talking about a different workflow, please by all means let me know, but I'm fed up of getting the shit here when all I've done is ask dev's to test their fucking code before it makes it into production on the server. The fact of the matter is nobody has been doing anything for months by the looks of it on the Github feed and that's because people CBA / Don't want to, not that the workflow is too complex. We're talking the basics of writing okay code here, I'm not asking you to write automated tests or unit tests or anything remotely business related, I'm asking you test your shit and have someone else check the code over before it gets merged.

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' 3) Raise a Pull request
4) Have anyone else in the dev team review it

These two steps seem useless if the code already works.

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/217-priorities-ownership-style-and-where-i-see-the-future-of-t

You’re hardly the owner anymore, but more importantly you’re driving away the only devs you have. You always blame the lack of dev effort for this server’s shortcomings, why add to it?

Quote

↩  RedEastWood These two steps seem useless if the code already works.

That assumes people don't lie and write perfect code. A peer review is not a high bar of entry for code...

Quote

↩  RedEastWood You’re hardly the owner anymore.

Steven is welcome to enforce his own rules over how he wants to manage suggestions.

↩ @'Ryan' 1. It can take weeks for someone else to review it for some reason.

2. This doesn't address the disorganization. The fact that stuff has to be reported on Jira, we do the work on GitHub, and are supposed to communicate on teams. GitHub does all 3 of those things much better than the current setup. Why not use it for all three?

Quote

↩  Telesphoreo 1. It can take weeks for someone else to review it for some reason.

Then prod another developer... Or the ELD...

Quote

↩  Telesphoreo This doesn’t address the disorganization. The fact that stuff has to be reported on Jira, we do the work on GitHub, and are supposed to communicate on teams. GitHub does all 3 of those things much better than the current setup.

Communication on teams was setup because it had better integrations into Github for all our projects, nobody ever complained (Certainly not to me other than when we spoke yesterday) but there's no reason we couldn't use Discord / similar.

Github however isn't a better issue tracker, we had major issues on the original TFM setup because Github defaults to per repo issues not per project, the Freedom server as a project means we have other stuff we want to track and prioritise against, like other plugin updates / enhancements to things that aren't TFM etc etc. Jira gives us a lot more control and transparency in that regard and is also fully integrated into Github, you just have to include the Jira issue reference in the branch or commit and it'll pick it up and tie it in nicely.

Again I've never said things can't be changed, but the ELD nor Steven has raised any concerns with me (Or @"Fyrsta"#118 in my absence) so I'm not sure how folks expect things to change if they won't communicate or even give them a go... Jira is easy as is Git and Teams if you can be bothered to give it a fighting chance.

I need to drop back offline now as I've got personal matters still to attend to, I'm sure Steven / Paldiu / Fyrsta can cover any further points in my continued break.