0AD 0BC Cooperation

[Radagast.]

Dear friends,

hereby the 0BC developers Magic Philosophers wish to reach an agreement to resolve the current discrepancies.

To not break mods' compatibility to 0AD, I wish to urge you to grant me the permission to commit some of my work. (don't worry, I'll not bloat your holy engine and if you really don't want me to, then I'll also not change the file structure).

In hope to reach an agreement,

J.R.I.B.-W. v. W. v. Z. aka Radagast

[Radagast.]

No answer also is an answer. At least I offered it. I can't help anymore. I wish you the best of luck.

[zzippy]

Didn't you already decide to fork 0ad?

After a period of involvement in 0AD in the Council of Modders as programmer and 3D artist, J.R.I.B.-W. v. W. v. Z. decided to fork 0AD to be able to work on the features and the required changes for a time machine effect that have been rejected in 0AD due to 0AD's vision being significantly different than the one of 0BC.

Edited October 7, 2014 by zzippy

[feneur]

It's not even been 24 hours and you've already run out of patience? To me that says enough about whether or not someone should get commit access. You're welcome to participate in the development of 0 A.D. on the same grounds as everyone else: if you're not part of the team you can still be a part of discussions and submit changes as patches, but don't have commit access to SVN.

[Radagast.]

That's sad. Though you have a point, my patience has run out. Not that I've run out of patience that suddenly. It's been over the course of my involvement.

If 0AD decides for 2nd-class citizenships, then it's your decision?

In my opinion in open source projects those that contribute, get access.

Simple and working (because commits can be reverted and usually you can talk to people and it will clarify quarrels).

I've been involved, have been on IRC, have let my code be overruled without being angry on anyone - to the contrary, I even like improvements. It's not that I have not the will to iron me through, it's just that I've seen such things before. Semi-open source so to say. Ever tried to find the files of wikispeed - the open source car?

Or you know KiCAD - ever looked at the political problems that arose there when even in the internet 'Westerners' treat purely additive code additions of 'Easterners' as not worth adding?

About the famous "Design committee" in 0AD I also may say something. That's ridiculous, even Ykkrosh said that generally there's never been something like that - or something like official Code style, because what he (or any other coder) coded, he just coded. And that's how it should work. First you make it work, then you fix these minor issues like 'ah I don't like that bracket there' or 'this line break really hurts my eyes'.

I have never treated you in a special negative way while you are quite cool (noone really knows your visions, noone knows if you have plans on storylines for campaigns or anything - at least you're a writer so my hope was you'd have a noble vision with 0AD).

Another disappointment in the Internet. Soon in the 1-way-Outernet too (yes, you can't decide which information you'll receive).

Kind regards,

2nd class citizen and that was it for me and 0AD. Sad, I liked this project and all these epic contributors from the contributors.txt that noone ever will read. Sad. Black. Mad. Sad. (anyone knows this contributor? probably already forgotten like Ykkrosh or wraiiti or sander or mimo the new glimmer of hope soon will be forgotten as eihrul and Jan Wasserberg already are. Nevertheless don't give up. The vision exists and it is epic - well it's still just a game, but maybe some day we really can teach history with it.)

[leper]

Ignoring most of your post, but I have to answer to this part:

In my opinion in open source projects those that contribute, get access.

Simple and working (because commits can be reverted and usually you can talk to people and it will clarify quarrels).

Commits including code you contributed (full listing): r15150, r15677, r15699, r15868.

There are some patches on trac that were applied (and are in the above listing), or they did get a review and weren't improved and thus aren't going anywhere, or the ticket was just invalid.

Yes, commits can be reverted, but patches can be improved before they are committed and as can be seen you didn't do that. Code contributions (patches) say more than long forum posts and judging from yours your demand for source access, the demand for getting an answer in less than 8 hours, and the above rant some 3 months later is presumptuous at best.

[Radagast.]

I agree. It may be fair to note that the 0AD team membership is all but transparent. I never asked for membership or anything just as was written. Instead I waited and waited ... and would still wait today.

This whole topic went fully away from what I wanted to achieve originally.

zzippy fully misunderstood my initial posting too: e.g.

my 'urge you to let me commit some of my recent _engine_ works' doesn't have anything to do with 0BC vs. 0AD. That 0BC had already forked 0AD earlier has never been in doubt.

What this topic 'should' have been all about was joint engine development. zzippy's answer thus is as much off as my rant posts, sorry for these btw.. (I stated earlier that 0BC has a different vision and thus _this_ fork is unavoidable while joint engine development had been an original desired compromise - but there apparently had been no interest.)

Sure, I had been in a development rush and had hoped for enthusiasm but despite the whole-world covering members of 0AD not even anyone answered "hey, stay tuned" or "hey, we'd [at least] like to see you in in theory" while I had been at work (these 8hours). This no-answers made me so sad that I started said impatient rant.

At times feneur had never been too heartily to me either, criticism and untrust in my 'contenance' and dexterity always has been present throughout the 0AD team (remember how he not granted Moderator rights to me when I just was off for 2weeks due to university? then he said more than once 'not sure if you wanted to stay' - this mistrust made me a bit uncomfortable and as could be seen - like in history - gradual frustration and antipathy will finally lead to war). Remember Austria-Hungary Serbia Russia anomaly from 1903/1908 on. Austria-Hungary was not in that bad relations to the two others and yet gradual decline was unstoppable and lead to out sad sad catastrophic WW1.

At a later point, when my contributions were still minor, even Sander lost his hope. That could be felt and it was my own fault because I erroneously stated the engine'd be limited which was full nonsense.

When I finally ignited, this sad 0BC 0AD controversy arose. Let's terminate my 0AD escapade with 'unlucky' and state one-way war. At least me I'm not at war with anyone (other than with those that use open source but not at least are convinced to also contribute themselves in a significant way). I've gradually even provided at least one patch after the start of the discrepancies - more could have been expected. I'd committed all significant engine works but if you consider their size then you probably might agree that providing these as patches made me feel very 2nd citizen. Though in the retroperspective there had been solutions to this problems. My actions were not helpful. Nice to learn this in the internet and not in the real world.

You continue your fun game, and 0BC will continue its time machine. Will be no fun anyway. So there should be no regret at your side. Our goal is education. Let's see what we can assemble.

With severe excuses, also to my swedish friend feneur. I beg for pardon for all these unlucky actions. It's not been helpful. Don't give up! (my due respect to all contributors that make all this open source epicness possible!)

[leper]

I agree. It may be fair to note that the 0AD team membership is all but transparent. I never asked for membership or anything just as was written. Instead I waited and waited ... and would still wait today.

So you wanted some of the perks of being a team member without any of the obligations? That's not how things work. Also the Wildfire Games Application Form states:

People who make good, substantial contributions over time will be asked to be a part of the official team anyway.

Notice the contributions part you stopped doing at some point and never resumed?

This whole topic went fully away from what I wanted to achieve originally.

zzippy fully misunderstood my initial posting too: e.g.

my 'urge you to let me commit some of my recent _engine_ works' doesn't have anything to do with 0BC vs. 0AD. That 0BC had already forked 0AD earlier has never been in doubt.

What this topic 'should' have been all about was joint engine development. zzippy's answer thus is as much off as my rant posts, sorry for these btw.. (I stated earlier that 0BC has a different vision and thus _this_ fork is unavoidable while joint engine development had been an original desired compromise - but there apparently had been no interest.)

Your project didn't have much apart from a huge forum post that didn't convey what you wanted to do and huge forum posts about things that might or might not happen have a high tendency to be left unread (or skimmed over and deemed to long). Phrasing your initial post properly instead of demanding something might also have been a better way to help others understand what you wanted to say.

Also being intent on forking without even seeking a discussion with the upstream isn't how you're going to get commit access either. No, the first two posts in this topic do not count as seeking discussion.

Sure, I had been in a development rush and had hoped for enthusiasm but despite the whole-world covering members of 0AD not even anyone answered "hey, stay tuned" or "hey, we'd [at least] like to see you in in theory" while I had been at work (these 8hours). This no-answers made me so sad that I started said impatient rant.

"Whole-world" with only some outside of Europe and America and you posted this on a Tuesday morning (yes, not only you have other obligations apart from just reading this forum), so the chance of anyone having time to read the forum and reply to posts that require knowledge of some things is pretty small.

At times feneur had never been too heartily to me either, criticism and untrust in my 'contenance' and dexterity always has been present throughout the 0AD team (remember how he not granted Moderator rights to me when I just was off for 2weeks due to university? then he said more than once 'not sure if you wanted to stay' - this mistrust made me a bit uncomfortable and as could be seen - [...]

Moderator rights is the wrong term. Priviledge is the word you are looking for (some might say obligation). We are trying to interact positively and closely with modders, but the fluctuations in the CoM and other related issues (read Romulus) might have made us a bit cautious with handing out such priviledges. Your reaction of leaving a short while after also makes that judgement quite right, doesn't it?

When I finally ignited, this sad 0BC 0AD controversy arose. Let's terminate my 0AD escapade with 'unlucky' and state one-way war. At least me I'm not at war with anyone (other than with those that use open source but not at least are convinced to also contribute themselves in a significant way). I've gradually even provided at least one patch after the start of the discrepancies - more could have been expected. I'd committed all significant engine works but if you consider their size then you probably might agree that providing these as patches made me feel very 2nd citizen. Though in the retroperspective there had been solutions to this problems. My actions were not helpful. Nice to learn this in the internet and not in the real world.

Because emotions are so easily conveyed across a text-only medium where people have better things to do than wonder whether someone who dropped a few patches and disappeared feels about not getting a response within 10 minutes. You also didn't take care of your other patches, so just adding more to the pile does not really count as helping a lot.

You could have forked the git clone and worked there so that others can see your work and we can see how some of the patches might be useful. But you didn't even do that, after neglecting all your patches on trac, and then you come demanding SVN commit access which is an earned priviledge that isn't handed out without any consideration whatsoever. And since then you also didn't even release your changes anywhere and you still wonder why nobody cares about a fork that doesn't give anything back.

[feneur]

(remember how he not granted Moderator rights to me when I just was off for 2weeks due to university? then he said more than once 'not sure if you wanted to stay' - this mistrust made me a bit uncomfortable

I'm sorry if that was how that came across, but all I meant was that if you were no longer going to be able (due to a lack of time) to use those permissions there was no reason for you to have them. It was all about keeping things tidy, and nothing about mistrust.

And as leper writes above, there's no war/treating you differently from our side, so if you feel that way it's certainly not intended. What we do want to make clear though is that we will not treat you differently from how we treat everybody else, neither negatively nor positively. The programmers try and review patches as soon as they have time, regardless of who submitted them. We do want to try our best to make sure the code is as good as possible though, and that means that even the programmers who have joined the team sometimes do things separately (whether as a patch or as a GIT branch or however they choose) to make sure bigger changes can be tested/reviewed before being included in the main SVN. Now you may agree with that in theory, but with posts such as the ones in this thread it's hard for us to get that impression of you. In other words, so far your words and your actions seems to speak of an attitude of getting things done and getting them done quickly. And there's certainly good things about that, but when it comes to a project of this size it's practically impossible for one person to fully grasp all the consequences of changing some pieces of code or other. Which is why we want to be a bit more careful than that. True, it might be slower at times, but hopefully it means both higher quality code and quicker development in the long run (if less time has to be spent fixing things later).

If you want to do things in a different way and commit things as soon as possible that's something you're free to do in a fork, but please understand that it's not how we want to do things for the main repository.

[Radagast.]

I agree. It may be fair to note that the 0AD team membership is all but transparent. I never asked for membership or anything just as was written. Instead I waited and waited ... and would still wait today.

So you wanted some of the perks of being a team member without any of the obligations?

No, please, that was never my intention. I just had read that one does not apply for team membership, which was why I didn't do that. I reject living on state/... cost and such. You may call me a fanatic, I have nothing against obligations but against lack of flexibility (and at that time, I had no idea of the Github power, that could have been used to tidy up the choas that was overcoming my patches) - just as feneur and you also wrote and I agree with.

Also the Wildfire Games Application Form states:

Quote

People who make good, substantial contributions over time will be asked to be a part of the official team anyway.

Notice the contributions part you stopped doing at some point and never resumed?

So the modding sector doesn't count as contributions? Then this was the misunderstanding, I thought of the overall picture. That explains a lot.

Your project didn't have much apart from a huge forum post that didn't convey what you wanted to do and huge forum posts about things that might or might not happen have a high tendency to be left unread (or skimmed over and deemed to long). Phrasing your initial post properly instead of demanding something might also have been a better way to help others understand what you wanted to say.

My "project" isn't one project - instead is is an overall concept, a merge and tidy-up of the modification/extension mess struggles that have (maybe still valid now) overcome me in all the research, trying to design things in a scientifically sensible historical way.

Also being intent on forking without even seeking a discussion with the upstream isn't how you're going to get commit access either. No, the first two posts in this topic do not count as seeking discussion.

"Whole-world" with only some outside of Europe and America and you posted this on a Tuesday morning (yes, not only you have other obligations apart from just reading this forum), so the chance of anyone having time to read the forum and reply to posts that require knowledge of some things is pretty small.

I already agreed, that this was a short-sighted/quick decision and short-sighting policy is not helpful. I at least try to give in that I made mistakes.

It's like in policy, sometimes situations spin out of control and get dead-locked so quickly and severely that it's difficult to overcome these hurdles. I'm happy that these insights may help us to prevent this in important future policy decisions (that anyone of us might have to take, who knows - no, not me of course, it's not about me, I don't want to be an egoist).

Moderator rights is the wrong term. Priviledge is the word you are looking for (some might say obligation). We are trying to interact positively and closely with modders, but the fluctuations in the CoM and other related issues (read Romulus) might have made us a bit cautious with handing out such priviledges. Your reaction of leaving a short while after also makes that judgement quite right, doesn't it?

So I did a really bad, devasting job and rejected all obligations during my moderator time? I essentially tried to abuse my power to lock threads and such?

Because emotions are so easily conveyed across a text-only medium where people have better things to do than wonder whether someone who dropped a few patches and disappeared feels about not getting a response within 10 minutes.

absolutely. I like the irony.

You also didn't take care of your other patches, so just adding more to the pile does not really count as helping a lot.

As said entropy was overcoming all my efforts and brought me to the brink. There was only two chances that appeared to me at that time:

1) Get backup of the council of Modders to merge all projects into one (at these times called 0AD Extended).

2) Get commit access and get things coded directly in 0AD (the "blanco check" I was seeking). Independent from modding restrictions that also started to prevent significant breakthroughs (because 1 was blocked internally due to another mistake I made: namely the assumption that there was common ground for the decision such that I acted unilaterally in the name of the council which lead to devastating results and taught us other lectures).

You could have forked the git clone and worked there so that others can see your work and we can see how some of the patches might be useful. But you didn't even do that, after neglecting all your patches on trac, and then you come demanding SVN commit access which is an earned priviledge that isn't handed out without any consideration whatsoever. And since then you also didn't even release your changes anywhere and you still wonder why nobody cares about a fork that doesn't give anything back.

Isn't giving anything back unfair? Can't it be seen from the overall actions in context of worlddevelopement and my prior forum activity that there is no interest whatsoever in commercialising/profit or something like these not so useful for the overall world things?

Additionally, as you experienced yourself, my knowledge of the scope of Git and also of the parallel development in the Github mirrors I was basically not aware of until not so long ago (and maybe still not fully am).

Anyway, it turns out the open development of 0AD and the closed development of 0BC is crucial for a better overall world, because despite its fully non-profit character, the Virtual Time Machine 0BC must strike suddenly and at once (read: not being released in chunks).

It must strike like a bolt to prevent others quickly commercializing it and removing/modifying in a unlucky way the philosophical questioning part. This would put us off entirely because isn't it almost certain, that if a greater enterprise came by to quickly profit from a project, then it would pull off heaps of resources and the other project were put off to the sidelines, thus the world would continue as it had, some make profit, the others starve.

But that's not hat we want, we want a "better world" (see "The Sleepwalkers, How Europe went to War in 1914" by C. Clark) - a world without wars, and 0AD/0BC is a unique opportunity for us to overcome these vicious circles that are clearly seen in history: wars,conflicts... all things that don't help the overall world - isn't it that a war doesn't have real victors? Aren't there only loosers in the overall picture?

I'm sorry if that was how that came across, but all I meant was that if you were no longer going to be able (due to a lack of time) to use those permissions there was no reason for you to have them. It was all about keeping things tidy, and nothing about mistrust.

I'm sorry for this misunderstanding too.

And as leper writes above, there's no war/treating you differently from our side, so if you feel that way it's certainly not intended. What we do want to make clear though is that we will not treat you differently from how we treat everybody else, neither negatively nor positively. The programmers try and review patches as soon as they have time, regardless of who submitted them. We do want to try our best to make sure the code is as good as possible though, and that means that even the programmers who have joined the team sometimes do things separately (whether as a patch or as a GIT branch or however they choose) to make sure bigger changes can be tested/reviewed before being included in the main SVN. Now you may agree with that in theory, but with posts such as the ones in this thread it's hard for us to get that impression of you. In other words, so far your words and your actions seems to speak of an attitude of getting things done and getting them done quickly. And there's certainly good things about that, but when it comes to a project of this size it's practically impossible for one person to fully grasp all the consequences of changing some pieces of code or other. Which is why we want to be a bit more careful than that. True, it might be slower at times, but hopefully it means both higher quality code and quicker development in the long run (if less time has to be spent fixing things later).

If you want to do things in a different way and commit things as soon as possible that's something you're free to do in a fork, but please understand that it's not how we want to do things for the main repository.

I appreciate your answers, that relief me a bit of how odd things went. That's not been my intention either.

Currently the 0AD.pyrogenesis <-> 0BC.pyrogenesis relation ensures stability and our non-commercialization, which is desirable, because basically 0BC is Thor's Hammer in the hand of 0AD: should 0AD really be commercialized (no, rights/licenses are no guarantuee, ask blender, they are also commercialized in China - or look at how big companies can overthrow and endure longer at courts), anyway, then we can release 0AD saturated with 0BC.pyrogenesis features and this way quickly keep the commercialization in check.

To be clear: If it's not obvious from my various (internet) activity, e.g. blender addons contributions, open machine development, teacher's toolchain development, ... there are no intentions to exploit anything. Money is no motor, it's finally a break for the overall welfare. (I even hate gold, maybe we someday we find so much gold that it loses all its value, to stop people quarrel about it ).

Recent world happenings have made my commitment to the welfare of the overall world only stronger. Isn't this a common base we can build upon?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Radagast.

[fabio]

Hi Radagast, 0 B.C. looks promising!

To start collaborating in the best way you may want to submit some of the 0 B.C. patches and attach them on a trac ticket. You may start to do it for patches that fix bugs or add features that should be common in both 0 B.C. and 0 A.D. (some 0 A.D. features are listed in GameplayFeatureStatus, GSOC_Ideas or other wiki pages, existings tickets or already discussed and approved on the forum). Then the patches can be reviewed and eventually merged in 0 A.D.. Some patches may take a bit of time before being reviewed and merged.

This way both projects could benefit.

[Radagast.]

Thanks fabio for your feedback.

Currently several things (from the 0BC side) prevent patches from be submitted:

1) Entropy, the diverge of 0AD and 0BC, make providing working patches difficult. Not to mention that several code style fanatic commits on the 0AD have made any automatic updates almost impossible and for the foreseeing future no time will be devoted to a manual merge of all these conflicts due to the immense tasks that still have to be coded (like animation merging, map streaming, simulation predictor, physics engine integration, ...).

Of course capturing is nice, but it's not what motivates me, it's not enough. In contrast to the common opinion the new influence visualization by Sander is of much greater importance.

2) The capability system is still not in, which means 0BC is in a broken state.

3) The libraries of 0AD and 0BC are diverging ...

4) The XML files are not compatible at all.

5) Any virtual time machine if really coded, must be released at once to strike.

The tendency is that 0BC and 0AD will continue for some time separately. The longer the less progress both sides make.

The 0BC team will remain small. Sure there is a need of serious art department development - heaps of animations are required for throwing things, baking, merging, lifting, climbing, ... nevertheless the desire is to build a team completely independently of 0AD - and not now. All depends on how the scientific community reacts to the idea to teach the lectures and principles of how history worked.

Some patches may take a bit of time before being reviewed and merged.

Agreed, hopefully at some point we will reach an agreement, let's make progress, let's take the initiative, the more progress, the easier it will become to get things compatible.

[niektb]

May I raise a question?

I would sincerely like to know what it is you seek.

Code exchange isn't possible as you explained above but what kind of collaboration did you have in mind if that isn't possible?

[Radagast.]

Sure there are corner stones. Isn't it usual that things don't go easily right away? The corner stones can be put out of the way as I mentioned, and that is via progress because progress is getting things done, which counteracts entropy. Less entropy frees time to get things synced.

0BC does not depend on 0AD development. Collaboration on the engine side would be nice of course but the vision of 0AD.pyrogenesis is blurry (while 0BC.pyrogenesis' vision is to interact tightly with blender and to support a realistic simulation, i.e. map streaming, time continuity, seasons, language generation using self-learning algorithm to reconstruct ancient languages and a phonetic representation that is translated into commands given to entities).

There is nothing in 0AD that 0BC needs. No efforts to come closer to blender, no efforts to change the civilization handling to a more realistic approach (details can be seen from earlier forum posts of mine).

Generally the impression arises that 0AD wants to cherry pick 0BC code while blocking functionality that not is defined in the cited roadmap which is not collaboration. leper would say, this is not how things work.

clarification:

I even hate gold, maybe we someday we find so much gold that it loses all its value, to stop people quarrel about it

Okay, I see, gold/diamond has a use, if it were abundant then we could even use it for critical parts of machines, basically allowing us to construct machines that never break, build things that last for thousands of years. How epic that world could be ... we could really fix the problems like every 9th human of the world not having enough to eat. We can fix it. A first step might be education, history already tells alot. Let's get a virtual time machine going.

[niektb]

Collaboration is something that should be bi-directional. What has 0 A.D. to offer to 0 B.C.? But also the other way around, what has 0 B.C. to offer to 0 A.D.?

[kosmo]

...and that is via progress because progress is getting things done, which counteracts entropy. Less entropy frees time to get things synced.

To add a small remark: Entropy always increases (globally). There is, as far as I know, no known way to prevent this.

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

—Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

[agentx]

> Entropy always increases (globally). There is, as far as I know, no known way to prevent this.

There is. It's called life.

[kosmo]

Hm. I assume life would not be able to lower entropy (locally) without an external source of exergy (probably to an overwhelming part by the sun).

[greenknight32]

Nothing happens without an external power source. Energy flows from a higher energy region to a lower energy region, that's what makes things happen - and results in an increase in entropy.

Life reduces entropy locally by increasing it elsewhere, thus it doesn't violate the principle that entropy always increases globally.

[Radagast.]

Is "exergy" an abbreviation for external energy? Isn't using abbreviations another kind of entropy because e.g. using the abbreviation "hash123" has to be looked up first to what it means, it may mean "ABBA1" which in itself is an abbreviation and has to be looked up, it may mean "cow with id 1223" which has to be looked up to finally get that it means the cow "FarmCoordinates.Cows.Ladybird". And people still think using abbreviations, e.g. hash123, is not only quicker but also less work?

Isn't all energy sourced by stars, i.e. the sun in our case. Locally lowering entropy, i.e. tidying up (somehow what leper does in 0AD), gettings things done, fixing broken things is possible. The energy is there, isn't it provided by Adenosin-Di/Tri-Phosphate (abbreviations: ADP<->ATP)? It can be spent for kidnapping girls like terrorists do or it can be spent preventing such actions that are out of your world and affect the other people's worlds negatively. We have the choice, it's just more complex because of the many different layers of influences.

Which is why so many of my works are currently open source if it makes sense and 0BC is not open source because it does not make sense because people would be playing it instead of coding it and because its only purpose is to educate the whole world in an epic way: time travel.

"Whole-world" with only some outside of Europe and America and you posted this on a Tuesday morning (yes, not only you have other obligations apart from just reading this forum), so the chance of anyone having time to read the forum and reply to posts that require knowledge of some things is pretty small.

That there are few people that have the required knowledge is the point you are right with.

The other part is less true, because don't Europe and America already span virtually all time zones? Especially because Russia actually is counted to Europe your argument is actually supporting "whole-world" time zone related.

--

=> Result: 0AD understands a merge of the 0AD.pyrogenesis and 0BC.pyrogenesis teams such that one side has to provide patches for the other? A merge under these hierarchical circumstances is not likely, especially as 0BC is in such a crazy development state that it can't deal with changes that 0AD may force into its base (which shall be provided as patches). As delayed/deccelerated virtual time machine development means the time machine will be finished not in a few years but in a few decades, 0BC can't collaborate.

Collaboration is something that should be bi-directional. What has 0 A.D. to offer to 0 B.C.? But also the other way around, what has 0 B.C. to offer to 0 A.D.?

0BC has to offer new debugging features, new XML features, heaps of new simulation/gameplay features, ... things that the 0AD team will have to spend heaps of effort to code themselves.

What has 0AD to offer to 0BC other than trying to force 0BC into the patch-providing secretary and other than critizing its code style? - An art department is the only answer but it's not unlikely that 0BC will come up with its own art development soon filling the only gap that 0BC suffers, thereby voiding these arguments and 0BC starts to wonder why 0AD still just considers 0BC as a minor "offstream" that is not worth merging. Anyway, this decision is out of the power of 0BC - there may only be progress that can solve the 0AD<->0BC deadlock.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Radagast.

[Radagast.]

Nothing happens without an external power source. Energy flows from a higher energy region to a lower energy region, that's what makes things happen - and results in an increase in entropy.

Thus the universe doesn't work without external power source? Where is the energy coming from then? i.e. where is the highest energy peak then if it exists and what created this energy?

Have we reached the boundaries of the understanding of our world? That's why there'll always be enough work, enough things to find out. Let's get things done ...

Edited May 20, 2015 by Radagast.

[niektb]

Isn't sending submitting a few quality patches a very good way to prove that 0 B.C. is a lot more than 'a minor "offstream" that is not worth merging'?

If you think that doesn't work then I think that (based on your words) there is no point in seeking a cooperation with 0 A.D. yet.

Edited May 20, 2015 by niektb

[Itms]

I originally disliked this topic because there's no point in talking about 0BC if we can't see what it is (understand, play it).

Now I also dislike it because people think they understand thermodynamics, which is a field even more prone to stupid interpretations than quantum physics is.

[leper]

[...], 0BC can't collaborate.

Since all you seem to say is the above and have no public code to show for it nor want to contribute patches but just leech of the exisiting code base and improvements I'm closing this topic since there seems to be nothing worth discussing here (apart from Phyics, but that is OT).