CIG talks about server meshing and 3.1 have been branched off

[HeadClot]

Hey Fellow Testies,
I got this info from GHG's Discord Server.

Also at the end of ATV they mentioned that 3.1 have been branched off from the main branch.

 

[Vavrik]

They need to think in terms of "asset server" I think. That is a separate server that manages all of your inventory and transactions, so that each server always agrees about what mission you're running, what cargo you have, gear, ship etc. Otherwise it sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Do a proof of concept before you go too far down a rabbit hole.

Also at the end of ATV they mentioned that 3.1 have been branched off from the main branch.

This is normal. It means 3.1 can be worked on separately from 3.0.1 and won't break anything. There'll be a merge later, just before 3.1 is deployed to create the release. It's curious they said that though, typically users aren't concerned with concurrent branches.

 

[Thalstan]

They have taken the current product and have split it. Developers can continue to develop new feature for release in 3.2 while bug fixing goes on in the 3.1 release. Once 3.1 has been released, they will work on merging all the fixes they have done for 3.1 back into the main development branch.

Honestly, this is a LOT of double work and they are being very ambitious with their goals. I am wondering how much more work they could get done if they didn't have to do these forks/merges. Maybe it's just something very minor and easily incorporated...that's what I hope it is.

 

[Vavrik]

Honestly, this is a LOT of double work and they are being very ambitious with their goals. I am wondering how much more work they could get done if they didn't have to do these forks/merges. Maybe it's just something very minor and easily incorporated...that's what I hope it is.

Well, I hope they aren't doing forks. They referred to it as a branch, which means you're managing features and bug fixes in the same development tree. A fork means you're developing a new product based on the first, it's a separate development tree. You can end up with the same thing in the end, but yeah - forking it means a lot of duplicate work, and a LOT of discipline.

 

[Printimus]

I like their idea of server meshing. Should make gameplay more stable/interesting.

 

[Bambooza]

This is normal. It means 3.1 can be worked on separately from 3.0.1 and won't break anything. There'll be a merge later, just before 3.1 is deployed to create the release. It's curious they said that though, typically users aren't concerned with concurrent branches.

Don't you mean they are branching 3.1 off the head so that they can focus on bug fixes while allowing other teams to push forward with new enhancements for 3.2 and beyond. I'd hope 3.0.1 is locked and no longer being worked on.

Honestly, this is a LOT of double work and they are being very ambitious with their goals. I am wondering how much more work they could get done if they didn't have to do these forks/merges. Maybe it's just something very minor and easily incorporated...that's what I hope it is.

It is a little bit of double work but its typical. Luckily lots of code repository software allows easily porting fixes on child branches back to the main line which helps to streamline the process. The benefit is that it allows teams not currently involved in the the next release to continue to check in their enhancements with out causing build problems and new issues.

 

[marctek]

Don't you mean they are branching 3.1 off the head so that they can focus on bug fixes while allowing other teams to push forward with new enhancements for 3.2 and beyond. I'd hope 3.0.1 is locked and no longer being worked on.



It is a little bit of double work but its typical. Luckily lots of code repository software allows easily porting fixes on child branches back to the main line which helps to streamline the process. The benefit is that it allows teams not currently involved in the the next release to continue to check in their enhancements with out causing build problems and new issues.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I have worked with other dev teams that do the same thing. We would normally merge our bug fixes in as we fixed the bugs so it's not a huge process later.

 

[Bruce]

Well, I hope they aren't doing forks. They referred to it as a branch, which means you're managing features and bug fixes in the same development tree.

For now it can't be fork at all - no functionality to transfer in-game entities between servers exist at the time, so nothing to fork with :D

 

[Bruce]

From encapsulation perspective it is very straightforward - someone goes into QT and three things are checked
1. Is destination on a new server
2. Is this server spawned already

In case 1 is yes and 2 is no - there will be some interdictions due to asteroids etc. :) otherwise just QT will take a bit longer if server is under load ( or forever if it's dead :) )

 

[Bambooza]

Great talk about a terrible bug. Stuck in QT for hours waiting for a server in a crashed state. No wonder ships have beds, showers and toilets.

 

[Bruce]

Great talk about a terrible bug. Stuck in QT for hours waiting for a server in a crashed state. No wonder ships have beds, showers and toilets.

It isn't that bad, but require a safety check on client side ... i.e. in case client calculated that QT is supposed to be finished XX seconds ago
1) it resends the request to be assigned to the server
2) health check of a previous server is made
3) in case another server for the same location is awailable - pilot is redirected to it, otherwise new server is spawned and
"positive" interdiction event is triggered to keep pilot happy ( i.e. you stumbled upon the tribe of rainbow space whales and have to look how nice they are for next 5 mins :)

 

[maynard]

"...Once the initial version has been put through its paces, we will continue to improve and refine the technology with future pre-alpha releases, incrementally bringing us closer to the final goal of a single shard universe." - Clive Johnson

the pre-alpha releases are in the past already, what is this guy trying to say?

"Let's do the time warp again..." - Rocky Horror

I seriously doubt I will live long enough to play SC in a single shard persistent universe

 

[Bambooza]

"...Once the initial version has been put through its paces, we will continue to improve and refine the technology with future pre-alpha releases, incrementally bringing us closer to the final goal of a single shard universe." - Clive Johnson

the pre-alpha releases are in the past already, what is this guy trying to say?

"Let's do the time warp again..." - Rocky Horror

I seriously doubt I will live long enough to play SC in a single shard persistent universe

Internal releases to QA and development testing. Alpha release is what is given to us the players. Pre releases are what Development, QA and even Evocati get.

 

[Bambooza]

t isn't that bad, but require a safety check on client side ... i.e. in case client calculated that QT is supposed to be finished XX seconds ago
1) it resends the request to be assigned to the server
2) health check of a previous server is made
3) in case another server for the same location is awailable - pilot is redirected to it, otherwise new server is spawned and
"positive" interdiction event is triggered to keep pilot happy ( i.e. you stumbled upon the tribe of rainbow space whales and have to look how nice they are for next 5 mins :slight_smile:

Indeed but I was meaning it as a sarcastic joke. :laughing:. Even still I've witnessed all to often back up fail safes that fail and leave the client in limbo.

 

[Vavrik]

the pre-alpha releases are in the past already, what is this guy trying to say?

3.1 is a branch that appears to contain a pre-alpha of the shard tech. It sounds reasonable to me, new functionality stuck in an alpha, or even beta software is often in a kind of less than optimal state, enough to demonstrate if you're barking up the right tree. Big BUT though. CIG uses funny terms for some things sometimes, so it's a little hard to tell exactly what they mean.

There was one we discussed in Discord today, Network bind/unbind, or something like that. I had to ask what the heck they were talking about. From the description in both online resources, and the general consensus of what it is, the standard 3D graphics terminology is LOD, for "level of detail".

 

[Black Sunder]

Server meshing huh?