Hello There, Guest! Login or Register


The future, what's next?
#1
This topic is about the future of our development. The last 6 months we’ve been working on 2.90, and we started working on 2.91, but we must go on. We must start thinking about 3.0, what will it be, how do we decide which features we want with what priority, when should we set milestones. All that stuff can be discussed here.

As you might already know, Badeend started working on a Pre-Compiler branch, which is basicly a new LVP version, using the pre-compiler. The pre-compiler gives many advantages over the compiler we use now, so it is a huge step switching to that, but it is probably the best one. So, what do we do?

In the next few weeks we need to continue working on 2.91, we want a cool update to be ready when SA-MP 0.3 gets released. We can add some new features into 2.91, that use the new 0.3 features. We can add some cool new handlers, and try to fix some more bugs that we find. We must not forget though, that 2.91 will also need some optimization, the current code is not quick enough. Some things that could help speed things up have already been suggested by Jay here. These things have to be done in the next week.

However, we need to move on, the 2.x codebase is a mess, the code’s not organized, there’s double code, and a lot of useless code and variables. That is why we should work on a the Las Venturas Playground Community 3.0 version. This version will be a huge update from 2.x, it includes a massive rewrite of much code, it has new possibilities for us using the pre-compiler, and it will be a fresh and clean start.

Another thing we would like to introduce together with 3.0, is an open-source codebase. The SVN repository will be read-only for the public. Players can check out the code, but will not be able to commit or run the code, which we will prevent by the code requiring some sort of plugin to run. People that are interested in writing code for Las Venturas Playground, but that don’t want to be in the development team, or that we don’t want in, can however write patches. These can be created by Tortoise SVN, which will generate a .patch file. This file can be sent to use, reviewed and tested, then we can decide whether or not we want this specific feature in our gamemode.

So, how do we work on this? How do we involve players in the development, after all, we want the players to see it a huge fantastic update too. I would like everyone’s reaction in this topic as soon as possible, post all your ideas, comments and reactions, so we can work more on it.

The Las Venturas Playground Lead Developers
Reply
#2
Well, I still don't get why we should go open source, but that's just me I guess. Agreed on the rest.
Reply
#3
Why we would go open source? That way a whole community can help fixing and adding things. Everyone who knows something about coding can make a .diff file, send it to us for evaluation, and if it works, we can add it in. We will prevent stealing of the gamemode by using a plugin that will make LVP work. So then we can have 20 people who develop sometimes, which actually speeds development up quite a lot.
Reply
#4
I really don't think we should go opensource. We have a unique server at the moment with a lot of nice features; lots of other people will steal ideas and code, and claim them as their own. I would suggest investing in more developers rather then giving everyone access to the source.
Reply
#5
(09-13-2009, 06:08 PM)Chillosophy link Wrote: I really don't think we should go opensource. We have a unique server at the moment with a lot of nice features; lots of other people will steal ideas and code, and claim them as their own. I would suggest investing in more developers rather then giving everyone access to the source.
My thoughts exactly. Plus like I mentioned in .dev a few weeks before: I don't think there are a lot of (good) Pawn devs in LVP.
Reply
#6
I agree. Open source is a bad idea. People aren't going to commit and write code for LVP that they can't test themselves.

(07-08-2009, 08:01 PM)Matthias link Wrote: I'm not too sure about the code being public and the fact players will be able to commit their code. I mean, how many Pawn developers are in the community? (Not those who just copy-paste, but those who actually understand what they are doing).

(07-08-2009, 08:18 PM)Pugwipe link Wrote: I'm not too sure, since people can't run the gamemode themselves it might lead to a lot of untested code being committed and we'll have to spend lots of time on it anyway.

(07-08-2009, 08:24 PM)Jay link Wrote: The only thing I can see the open source move beneficial to is the SA:MP community. The LVP community is quite large, but let's face it, quite stupid to. If people are going to be interested enough to commit code to 3.0's code base without actually being able to play and test it themselves right away then they simply would have applied to become developers. As Matthias stated I don't think the community has many experienced coders - looking at the scripting section in the SA:MP board of this forum shines a light on it.
Reply
#7
I still think going open source would be nice, but hearing your arguments has made me think. This decision has to be discussed extensively. Even if we prevent them from running the gamemode, it's still very easy to copy partial pieces of code. Even though going open source would allow more involvement from the community, I think it's also very important to keep LVP as unique as it is. I'm not sure anymore at this moment. I'd also like to hear more opinions, including from other management members, about what they think is more important, more community involvement and risking losing some of our uniqueness, or staying like this, but not giving the community the chance to get involved.
Reply
#8
Sorry about the bump, but seems like a fairly big issue.

I say no - we've worked hard on it and that's all that will happen is people will change the name and whine that it doesn't start, or will take chunks off to use themselves. The community can get involved by registering to become a developer or a beta tester (if that's possible to apply for?).

What might not be a bad idea though is to make open source simplified versions of features we currently have on the server, such as the bar handler without the actual drinking animation and more if I can upgrade it to use an NPC / have support for multiple bars.
Reply
#9
What would be the funtion of the simplified versions? That will give us extra work rewriting them to simple stuff, and it won't give us advantages since edits made to non LVP versions aren't for LVP.
Reply
#10
Generate interest and attract some others who want to come work with us, perhaps?

But mainly point 1 - was just a small idea at the end of a post disagreeing with releasing the source.  :9~
Reply