search

GTNewHorizons / GT-New-Horizons-Modpack

New Modpack with Gregtech, Thaumcraft and Witchery
https://www.gtnewhorizons.com/
Other
956 stars 297 forks source link

StepUp for better QoL #16402

Closed ghost closed 3 months ago

ghost commented 3 months ago

Your GTNH Discord Username

No response

Your Pack Version

StepUp

Mod Name

StepUp

The Mod to Add

https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/stepup

Your Reason

Enrich QoL of modpack

Preliminary Investigation

Requires this patch for 1.7.10 https://github.com/NotTooManyItems/StepUp/issues/18

Final Checklist

Elisis commented 3 months ago

We already have a number of items that allow a player to do this, adding this mod would mess with balance.

Quarri6343 commented 3 months ago

Its all rights reserved mod so it doesn't meet the "This mod is released under an open source license. Yes, this is required now." requirement. https://github.com/NotTooManyItems/StepUp/blob/master/src/main/resources/META-INF/mods.toml#L3 https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/stepup

ghost commented 3 months ago

Its all rights reserved mod so it doesn't meet the "This mod is released under an open source license. Yes, this is required now." requirement. https://github.com/NotTooManyItems/StepUp/blob/master/src/main/resources/META-INF/mods.toml#L3 https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/stepup

You are free to use StepUp in modpacks

chochem commented 3 months ago

thats not the same thing. we want to be able to fix problems.

Speiger commented 3 months ago

@chochem Not a big fan of a Open Source requirement. I can see why you want that, but that kinda defeats also the purpose to some degree. A Modpack on CF is designed to also support the devs who make original works, taking it over just because you disagree and dwarfing the original project doesn't make the Open Source Project that does that look good. At that point you are not much better than closed source projects that basically chokehold your ecosystem.

Ignoring that, Competition should exists and the Mod is so small that you could easily make your own version and as long there isn't something that could say: "You copied my Sourcecode" you are basically in the clear. And you can't really claim how step assist was implemented in the first place since there are so many implementations out there that its not really claimable in the first place. Just his own exact implementation is.

chochem commented 3 months ago

I mean I am not in charge here. XD Having said that, I agree with the policy. GTNH is an extremely tightly integrated modpack with like 1000 contributors and 10 years of dev time. We have fixed stuff in a lot of mods and support plently for the wider 1.7.10 community. ARR mods just hinder such work. You can develop one and thats totally fine, but we are not going to use it.

ghost commented 3 months ago

@chochem Not a big fan of a Open Source requirement. I can see why you want that, but that kinda defeats also the purpose to some degree. A Modpack on CF is designed to also support the devs who make original works, taking it over just because you disagree and dwarfing the original project doesn't make the Open Source Project that does that look good. At that point you are not much better than closed source projects that basically chokehold your ecosystem.

Ignoring that, Competition should exists and the Mod is so small that you could easily make your own version and as long there isn't something that could say: "You copied my Sourcecode" you are basically in the clear. And you can't really claim how step assist was implemented in the first place since there are so many implementations out there that its not really claimable in the first place. Just his own exact implementation is.

Agreed, there's many proprietary mods in modpack with unknown license state, which basically "All rights reserved" by default as I know, on the other hand the guy who created mod and just abandoned it so we have to create our own implementation now...

ghost commented 3 months ago

I mean I am not in charge here. XD Having said that, I agree with the policy. GTNH is an extremely tightly integrated modpack with like 1000 contributors and 10 years of dev time. We have fixed stuff in a lot of mods and support plently for the wider 1.7.10 community. ARR mods just hinder such work. You can develop one and thats totally fine, but we are not going to use it.

Yep, cool, unless it's Biomes O' Plenty which ARR too, whey you trying to remove it from modpack everything breaks to pieces, so such ideology not always works I guess...

chochem commented 3 months ago

some ARR mods were in the pack long before the policy was implemented and it takes a lot of work to replace them (if ever). not just BoP, but also thaumcraft and ic2 for example.

ghost commented 3 months ago

I don't even want to replace it, I want to remove it all together because in 1.7.10 it's impossible to turn off Quicksand generation and you didn't fixed it, most cheap and infuriating feature I ever found in any mod

dvdmandt commented 3 months ago

I don't even want to replace it, I want to remove it all together because in 1.7.10 it's impossible to turn off Quicksand generation and you didn't fixed it, most cheap and infuriating feature I ever found in any mod

Which is a prime example of why we only want open source mods. There's too much depending on it for it to be removed, any existing servers would get broken worlds etc, and bugs or features like that can't be easily fixed due to it not being open. I think someone is working on a way to get rid of it, but no idea about the state of that effort.

ghost commented 3 months ago

I don't even want to replace it, I want to remove it all together because in 1.7.10 it's impossible to turn off Quicksand generation and you didn't fixed it, most cheap and infuriating feature I ever found in any mod

Which is a prime example of why we only want open source mods. There's too much depending on it for it to be removed, any existing servers would get broken worlds etc, and bugs or features like that can't be easily fixed due to it not being open. I think someone is working on a way to get rid of it, but no idea about the state of that effort.

It's about modularity, you made it this way because integrated hard-coded recipes and other things I guess, I can add and remove it to my modpack without any issues

chochem commented 3 months ago

I don't even want to replace it, I want to remove it all together because in 1.7.10 it's impossible to turn off Quicksand generation and you didn't fixed it, most cheap and infuriating feature I ever found in any mod

Which is a prime example of why we only want open source mods. There's too much depending on it for it to be removed, any existing servers would get broken worlds etc, and bugs or features like that can't be easily fixed due to it not being open. I think someone is working on a way to get rid of it, but no idea about the state of that effort.

It's about modularity, you made it this way because integrated hard-coded recipes and other things I guess, I can add and remove it to my modpack without any issues

we also support plenty of mods (like AE2, NEI, lwjgl3ify, etc) for the wider community to allow such modularity. But again that is only possible because they are open source and would not be a thing otherwise.

mitchej123 commented 3 months ago

A lot of 1.7.10 mods have been abandoned, and mod authors eventually move on - even if the mod is active right now. We're a long running, big modpack -- we're not adding new ARR mods that the author might abandon/not fix bugs for.

You don't have to agree with the policy, but it's not changing. You're free to add whatever mods you'd like locally. Existing ARR mods have been grandfathered in unless someone ambitious writes a clean room drop in replacement :)

Also being FOSS doesn't preclude someone from distributing via CF and maintain artistic control of the mod, we want assurances that we'll be able to fix bugs whether or not the author is available, and not having to resort to ASM/Mixins all the time.

ghost commented 3 months ago

A lot of 1.7.10 mods have been abandoned, and mod authors eventually move on - even if the mod is active right now. We're a long running, big modpack -- we're not adding new ARR mods that the author might abandon/not fix bugs for.

You don't have to agree with the policy, but it's not changing. You're free to add whatever mods you'd like locally. Existing ARR mods have been grandfathered in unless someone ambitious writes a clean room drop in replacement :)

Also being FOSS doesn't preclude someone from distributing via CF and maintain artistic control of the mod, we want assurances that we'll be able to fix bugs whether or not the author is available, and not having to resort to ASM/Mixins all the time.

I can't add mods locally because BOP is unbearable to play with at 1.7.10

mitchej123 commented 3 months ago

You're free to remove it or swap it out with whatever you want locally. There might be some breakage if the items are used in recipes, but you can fix that.

We prioritize backwards compatibility with existing worlds, and removing BOP without a drop in replacement isn't feasible, so Mixins the are only option right now.

dvdmandt commented 3 months ago

I can't add mods locally because BOP is unbearable to play with at 1.7.10

So why did you want to add StepUp to the pack at all if you can't even bear to play it?

ghost commented 3 months ago

I can't add mods locally because BOP is unbearable to play with at 1.7.10

So why did you want to add StepUp to the pack at all if you can't even bear to play it?

Because I added it by myself to be able to play game and found out that Quicksand is there to ruin it

mitchej123 commented 3 months ago

Add a mixin to remove it, or prevent it from spawning, or be replaced by another block ;)

ghost commented 3 months ago

I dont know anything about mixins, and there's no way to stop it from spawning because there's no config in 1.7.10 for some reason, while it was in versions before and after

mitchej123 commented 3 months ago

Exactly why we no longer allow new ARR mods to be added. It's probably a trivial(ish) mixin for anyone familiar with them....

Speiger commented 3 months ago

Yeah if moddevs want to leave and their mod is closed source it sucks then if you want to continue said mods. Though this can also be solved without a FOSS requirement IMO.

For one, there could be special licenses made just for GTNH in this example that allow continued development or taking over of the project, even if there are special conditions behind it. Second projects could be recreated as needed. Edit: Those assume the project is not FOSS and the developer doesn't want to open source the project.

My point was more of a "FOSS Requirement" on Actively developed projects of people who have closed source software, seems a bit offputting and simply get rejection from the developer itself to be included.

And i know you guys have a few projects from me in there too, which are closed source. So hearing a FOSS requirement being added is offputting to put it lightly ^^"

On the other hand I am actively maintaining projects even if it takes time and i am accessible so i don't worry to much here ^^"

Lets put it this way its a delicate topic and both sides want assurances ^^"

Cleptomania commented 3 months ago

@chochem Not a big fan of a Open Source requirement. I can see why you want that, but that kinda defeats also the purpose to some degree. A Modpack on CF is designed to also support the devs who make original works, taking it over just because you disagree and dwarfing the original project doesn't make the Open Source Project that does that look good. At that point you are not much better than closed source projects that basically chokehold your ecosystem.

Would like to mention that if there is a mod we want in the pack that is Open Source and is still actively developed for Minecraft 1.7.10, then we will gladly use the upstream work and contribute to that, the fact is that there are extremely few mods that fit that description today. With no active upstream all we can do is maintain our own fork, and if a mod isn’t open source it removes the ability for us to maintain it past the point that the original author is no longer interested in doing it.

mitchej123 commented 3 months ago

Yeah if moddevs want to leave and their mod is closed source it sucks then if you want to continue said mods. Though this can also be solved without a FOSS requirement IMO.

Sure, we'd examine an exception on a case by case basis, but it's a good default rule/starting point IMHO.

For one, there could be special licenses made just for GTNH in this example that allow continued development or taking over of the project, even if there are special conditions behind it. Second projects could be recreated as needed. Edit: Those assume the project is not FOSS and the developer doesn't want to open source the project.

We've got a few mods we've forked, that were already in the modpack, with permission from the author for bug fixes. We'd also be ammenable to an abandonware license -- limited rights unless abandoned for X months... then -- I believe there's one of those from glee8e.

My point was more of a "FOSS Requirement" on Actively developed projects of people who have closed source software, seems a bit offputting and simply get rejection from the developer itself to be included.

There aren't many actively developed 1.7.10 projects that we'd consider putting in at this point; it's not a hard and final rule but it's a good starting point and the reasons behind it are more important than the implementation.

And i know you guys have a few projects from me in there too, which are closed source. So hearing a FOSS requirement being added is offputting to put it lightly ^^"

Most of those are grandfathered in, we'd have to evaluate a new one if it were brought up.

On the other hand I am actively maintaining projects even if it takes time and i am accessible so i don't worry to much here ^^"

Lets put it this way its a delicate topic and both sides want assurances ^^"

I agree, and we'd be willing to have those discussions with any authors, but we're not going to compromise on it for someone who isn't the author and is proposing a new mod addition.

Speiger commented 3 months ago

@mitchej123 reasonable terms IMO.

Speiger commented 3 months ago

Anyways, sorry for derailing the conversation a bit ^^" But it gave some valuable but assuring insight into the project.