New growlamps needed

[paramat]

Non-cubic mese growlamps have been requested so that meselamp doesn't have to be used when growing stuff underground. I'm thinking a simple ground-only mese torch or narrow lamp (a simple nodebox). The recipe can be generous to compensate for now needing mese lights to grow saplings underground. I'm happy to work on this and keen to partially address the complaints about not being able to grow saplings in darkness, i would like to make mese growlamps easier to acquire.

[forsakenquantum]

@Zeno- how does that code show that the design was intentional? I don't see it

[paramat]

Stop insisting that minetest has always required more than a torch. [...] Hmmmm found proof in the source code last night that the design, before you changed it, was intentional

In MTv0.3, that was a very long time ago and pretty much a different game. The code shows an absence of a light check, which means nothing, there is no intention, i am referring to light checks that are satisfied by a torch. Throughout MT history if there has been a light check for plant growth it has always required more than a torch.

Light checks have been present for many plants for 4 years now, throughout most of v0.4, that's enough to count as intentional design. The requirements for level 13 were added for many plants years before i added them to saplings, it was not me who started adding light checks for 13. What i refer to as 'a bug' is the lack of light checks for saplings when other plants have them, not light checks themselves.

@tenplus1 I have never said players' opinions are invalid.

[paramat]

Zeno i'll respond to things you wrote on IRC:

things are being merged now without regard for what coredevs think

We are mergng commits according to the rules and based on MTG dev agreement.

we are not allowed to commit to minetest_game otherwise I'd just revert the silly commits

So you are suggesting you would like to revert MTG commits yourself with no agreement, that would get you kicked out of MT.

paramat is still twisting words insisting that saplings have NEVER been able to be grown underground

I've explained clearly about 10 times now that i have never said that.

But why don't our opinions count?

Your opinion does count, to me too, but you have no dev authority in MTG.

even nore objected to 1476 and it was ignored until sofar said he agreed with hmmmm

I was very aware of that objection, a dev objection is no reason for the author to stop promoting a PR. At that point i had sofar's support so there was still a chance it may be eventually approved.

but when something comes up that is very controversial we're basically ignored

I think we can agree i have not been ignoring you :) I have also been working hard to address the concerns, and your concerns, i have made meselamps cheaper and am adding new light types.

(e.g. hmmmm is not a mtg dev so his opinion doesn't matter)

His opinion does matter, to me too, my comment was to state that he doesn't have dev authority in MTGame.

I just think that we are not listened to

You are.

basically breaking underground farms and forests is IMO a bad idea

The solution i propose will add a setting to get the old behaviour back. I want to keep you happy.

if it was a config option, though, nobody could complain 18:45 I wouldn't 18:45 it would not break older worlds for a start

That's what i'm suggesting.

[paramat]

More:

Also, I don't think it's right to ignore the poll just because the results might not be want you want

I'm not, i'll ignore it if 1 is chosen too. (EDIT i won't be ignoring the poll anymore).

also, your opinion as well as mine are basically to be ignored because we're just players

Never said that. I mean you don't have dev authority. Player's opinions count and MTGame devs listen to them.

I really don't know what's going on. It's like he's a different person from a month ago

That's what i think of you, you have been quite unpleasant towards me for the last 2 weeks, it suddenly started after xmas. I have patiently argued with you without being unpleasant towards you. The reason i have been absent from IRC recently is due to your aggression, i find IRC makes me anxious at the best of times.

He seems to want to ignore everyone

I'm arguing with everyone, that's not ignoring.

[Zeno-]

we are not allowed to commit to minetest_game otherwise I'd just revert the silly commits

So you are suggesting you would like to revert MTG commits yourself with no agreement, that would get you kicked out of MT.

Umm, excuse me. Do not put words in my mouth. Read what I said again:

we are not allowed to commit to minetest_game otherwise I'd just revert the silly commits

That's very different to what you seem to think I said :/

[rubenwardy]

That implies:

If I were allowed to commit to minetest_game (ie: was a MTG dev) I'd just revert the silly commits

Two dev approvals would be required for such a thing - you'd effectively be merging a PR as the commit is old

[Zeno-]

@rubenwardy correct. But for the sake of brevity I didn't see that it was necessary to explain in IRC the entire process of which we're all fully aware. Let's just say my comment was a truncated version of "we are not allowed to commit to minetest_game otherwise I'd review the rules, get another core dev to support, and just revert the silly commits"

@paramat I am sorry if I am coming across as aggressive towards you personally. That's unfortunate. However, I make no apology for being aggressive (I'd prefer passionate, though) about the issue. I will henceforth try and make my comments more directed towards the issue rather than referring to you.

Edit: @paramat Also, I'm not sure if it's constructive speaking about this issue further as it's been put to a vote. Looking at the results I don't think either of us is going to "like" the result, so the point is probably moot as the result of the poll is likely to guide the direction.

[paramat]

@Zeno- thanks for your message, appreciated. I'm feelng calmer now and won't be avoiding IRC.

[paramat]

1480 merged.