A topic about how we want to treat each other in this community

[Flashblade]

A bit of backstory, as you might know at the moment there has been a release of a seperate fork of the mod Kerbal Joint Reinforcement against the expressed wishes of the original author ferram4 (I interpret his original statement that he won't release KJR for the pre-release as his wish).

As far as I know (Have I read all the threads in this forum? Heck no!) this is the first time in the history of ever in the KSP community that a seperate fork of a mod is being released to circumvent the decision of the original author to not have a release. This I find utterly disrespectful.

To be clear I am not against the spirit of open source licenses. I have been part of such an effort myself. I poured many hours, together with blowfish and others, into upgrading B9 Aerospace from Beta to release version. But this B9 maintenance port formed after bac9 himself messaged on this board that he has no further time to keep updating B9. Furthermore we didn't have an official release until he approved of it. All that we did had his blessing. That doesn't mean that I think others should never pick up a mod when they do not have the consent of the author. If a mod author hasn't shown up for 2 - 3 months I think it is fair game to pick up where he or she left off. Even than people on this forum are usually reluctant to do so, because the author might come back.

But this is clearly not the case here. As far as I know people were so desperate for ferram to work on the pre-release that they offered him a steam key as a gift. He refused it because he simply didn't want to work on multiple unstable releases. That is when a third party steps in and comes to the rescue. That he doesn't have ferram's consent is pretty clear when you look at the thread of the fork. ferram says that he will receive no support in getting KJR to work. Making this worse is that this will cause ferram problems down the line as he himself has stated.

I am sorry but this is wrong and I see nothing worth applauding here. We are lucky that ferram has a pretty thick skin. Another author might just decide you know what. You don't seem to be needing me anymore, so just keep on going without me. I doubt there is anyone in this community who could pick up ferram aerospace if he decided to drop it, but even if it is a mod which is fairly simple and someone else can continue just fine it is no way to treat each other in this community. The licence might not forbid this, but morally it is just crap.

Okay I am done that is all I wanted to say on this matter.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Flashblade

[ShadowZone]

This Pre-Release thing has made a lot of folks completely bonkers.

They seem to forget that this is an extended public beta to fine tune the upcoming official release and not the official finished product in and of itself. In part, Squad is responsible for this by making a huge event out of the pre-release, including a twitch-marathon and big announcements etc. However, it was still said, always, that this is still quite removed from the final product.

As someone working closely with software developers, I completely understand @ferram4's refusal to update his mod to work with an unfinished product. You would have to chase after every build and check if your mod still works and then some. This is something all of us need to understand and need to respect. We aren't entitled to those mods. But in a lot of threads a lot of people act like the modders owe them an update. This needs to stop. Let them do their thing, at their pace. It's their decision.

So yeah, I short I completely agree with you on this subject.

[ferram4]

I personally don't have so much of a problem with forking mods against the modder's wishes in theory.  KJR is GPL, this is allowed.  However, I do have problems with practice and implementation, considering that the decisions made risk making modding (at least in the short-to-mid-term) much more of a hassle and show that those involved didn't think things through completely.

1. Releasing a compatibility fork without ensuring that all the behavior is functional.  Emerald's fork did not fix all of the code, so basically it defeats the purpose of a compatibility release because it wasn't actually fully compatible.
2. Updating the .version file for the fork.  That is only supposed to be done for official releases, and interferes with the ability to effectively use AVC to inform people of mod updates.  Considering that the fork doesn't fix all the issues, that basically guarantees that I get unnecessary support requests unless I drop AVC support or move to engaging in versioning wars with anyone who decides to fork, accounting for all dev releases and all kinds of silliness.
3. Anyone maintaining a modlist for dev builds of mods for a pre-release build of KSP.  What benefit does this provide, besides ensuring that modders are discouraged from pushing in-dev code to avoid the most impatient uses rushing in to play with something that isn't even certain to function?
4. Keeping links to two versions of a mod in the modlist, even after being told of the negative consequences (basically, reasons 1 and 2) for linking the fork.

If the fork had simply completely fixed all the behaviors, I'd have no problem with it, because it means no risk of bug reports.  If it didn't update the .version file, I'd have no problem with it, because there'd be no risk someone who installed it wouldn't get the memo that a new KJR was out.  If the modlist was limited to only official full-release mods, I'd have no problem with it, considering that that's the way it's always been and it's limited to stuff that modders are confident are fine and not risk a hassle for uploading in-dev stuff to Github. 

I'll be honest, I'm just not surprised by any of this.  I had kind of figured that everyone would take that attitude that the pre-release was really just "release, but sooner!! :D"; the reactions to build 1196 breaking lots of things with the fix to joints (TL;DR: joints pre-1196 were unbreakable, post-1196 they are breakable) kind of proved that.  I see the benefit it's given to Squad, but all the same I kinda wish that it wasn't around.  The KSP community just isn't mature and patient enough for a public experimental.

[Grumman]

As far as I'm concerned, the right way to fork a mod for a compatibility update is to release only the files necessary to fix the mod. If the .dlls stop working, release new .dlls, but don't package everything together so they don't need to download the original mod in the first place.

18 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

I'll be honest, I'm just not surprised by any of this.  I had kind of figured that everyone would take that attitude that the pre-release was really just "release, but sooner!! :D"; the reactions to build 1196 breaking lots of things with the fix to joints (TL;DR: joints pre-1196 were unbreakable, post-1196 they are breakable) kind of proved that.  I see the benefit it's given to Squad, but all the same I kinda wish that it wasn't around.  The KSP community just isn't mature and patient enough for a public experimental.

I'd place the blame with Squad, not the community. If people seem impatient now, it's because the move to Unity 5 and the changes to probes has been a Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads for the better part of a year. KSP is all about the persistent saves, and knowing it would be lost but not when in a game that is supposed to be out of beta is a killer.

[ShadowZone]

35 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

I'll be honest, I'm just not surprised by any of this.  I had kind of figured that everyone would take that attitude that the pre-release was really just "release, but sooner!! :D"; the reactions to build 1196 breaking lots of things with the fix to joints (TL;DR: joints pre-1196 were unbreakable, post-1196 they are breakable) kind of proved that.  I see the benefit it's given to Squad, but all the same I kinda wish that it wasn't around.  The KSP community just isn't mature and patient enough for a public experimental.

The question is if any larger game community is mature and patient enough for that

1196 proves that 1.1 is still very much WIP since there are things that now behave worse than in 1183 or even in 1.0.5 (I have previously working vessels spontaneously explode on the pad since 1196, for example). So yeah... for fooling around, I go to my 1.1 pre-release install. For "serious" stuff, I still revert to my 1.0.5 install.

[emerald]

I'm appalled at the discussions my actions caused.

I feel KJR to be quite important for the game, since i think the craft design is otherwise centered on struts and not really the craft. So I rebuilt the mod and it worked for me, so I thought to share it (since the license does not forbit it) for others to benefit from it. I clearly stated, that I didn't improve the code but made it compile and a short test seemed to work. It was a mistake to increase the version number, however, I also don't understand the problem to pick a higher one for a new release (its just a number, nothing else, and numbers are not limited as far as I am informed).

I am sorry to ferram4 that I destroyed his versioning, forced him to release an early build and brought many problems to him.

[Superfluous J]

This is by no means the first time a KSP mod has been forked to do something that the modder expressly indicated that he did not want to happen. The most memorable of them was the whole problem with the unofficially official 64bit KSP build that caused lots of mods to fail, and so modders eventually just started coding in locks in their code so they would not work in 64 bit builds. Others recompiled those mods with the locks disabled, usually in a way similar to this without changing the name. Those workarounds sometimes got to the point of black market trading, it felt. And at best they caused confusion. I remember at the time I personally was confused when I first encountered it.

That was a dark time in KSP modding. I'd prefer its like not happen again, for everybody's sake.

1 hour ago, emerald said:

I feel KJR to be quite important for the game, since i think the craft design is otherwise centered on struts and not really the craft. So I rebuilt the mod and it worked for me, so I thought to share it (since the license does not forbit it) for others to benefit from it. I clearly stated, that I didn't improve the code but made it compile and a short test seemed to work. It was a mistake to increase the version number, however, I also don't understand the problem to pick a higher one for a new release (its just a number, nothing else, and numbers are not limited as far as I am informed).

You posted this right as I was posting. I'd like to address it directly (and thank you for posting here in a thread that may turn even more wrong for you).

In my personal not-really-a-modder opinion, you only did one thing wrong: You released a forked version of an existing mod without changing the name. Anybody running your version would - upon experiencing a problem - bug not you but Ferram about it. And that is one of the biggest sins in game modding: Don't unnecessarily bug (or cause others to bug) people who work for you for free.

Edited April 10, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[ferram4]

@emerald: TBH, I'm actually in agreement with 5thHorseman here.  If you had released under a different name, everything would have been fine, because now it's obviously not official KJR.  If you had kept the name, but not messed with the .version file, I'd probably raise my eyebrow and still point out the code failures, but issues beyond this short bit of time would be non-existent; people's AVC versions would still report it as 3.1.4, once 3.1.5 is out everything would be fine.  By changing the .version to report 3.2.0, anyone who downloaded the .version file by through copying the entire directory (as I suspect they would) will not hear about any KJR updates until I release 3.2.1, and that requires the farce of 3.1.4 -> 3.2.1 when I'd rather my versioning system make sense.  Which I suppose could be blamed on me for being overly strict, but engaging in version shenanigans like that is something that shouldn't be necessary and causes confusion when it does happen.

If you still want to engage in modding and creating your own stuff, go ahead, you've at least got the competence for coding.  If you want to update other mods whose authors aren't around anymore and that the license allows, go ahead, just be sure you know more about how the code works and try to keep the "brands" separate in case the original author comes back.  The only thing you've really done wrong here is unintentionally causing the potential for longer-term issues, and that's really the only extent of my problem with you.  Otherwise, go ahead and have fun with modding.

[John FX]

IMHO All forks should be easily identifiable as such. Each fork should start with the lowest version number as it is a new release and the original mod should continue with it`s own version numbers.

For example the fork in question to my mind would be called "KJR 1.1-prerelease fork 0.1 (WIP)" to easily identify it as the first version of a fork for the prerelease of 1.1 which also is a WIP.

[sarbian]

3 hours ago, Grumman said:

I'd place the blame with Squad, not the community. If people seem impatient now, it's because the move to Unity 5 and the changes to probes has been a Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads for the better part of a year. KSP is all about the persistent saves, and knowing it would be lost but not when in a game that is supposed to be out of beta is a killer.

No, don't blame Squad. The upgrade is a really big task and I am not surprised that it took more time than anticipated. The new Squad hire will allow the game dev to go on even faster with less and less bug and more feature. 

 

Now that I have seen it running I think that the Pre Release is not a bad idea. It allows to find bugs in that large upgrade that the exp team could not find in a reasonable time. Sure it also create a large level of noise in the bug tracker but the benefits are here. (note that I would not like to see this for every release. It is a lot of noise for both the dev and modders, anb others)

 

[Stone Blue]

Maybe a little off topic, but i would like to play Devil's advocate for a sec...

I've been seeing a LOT of mod dev's, already changing the titles of release threads to reflect 1.1 updates... As well as dropping all mention of links, and instructions for 1.0.5 releases from the OPs... I've even seen a few that have deleted 1.0.5 versions already from host sites...

I think BOTH end users and mod devs need to remember that 1.1 is in Pre-release... And that a LARGE portion of users DONT EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO THAT 1.1 PRELEASE YET, and are STILL ACTIVELY PLAYING 1.0.5... Some (like me) will be, for at least another couple months, to let the 1.1 dust settle...

I realise its GREAT that devs are jumping right in to get working updates for 1.1... And I can understand how updating release titles and adding links/instructions/etc for these 1.1 releases (maybe) saves you from getting repeated posts asking if 1.1 updates are ready...

But I think in doing all this, devs have unintentionally thrown fuel on the fire of everyone thinking that 1.1 is FULLY PLAY-READY, and meant to be used with mods, when it is NOT there yet...As well as feeding the hysteria that everyone NEEDS 1.1 updates NOW, and that if a dev has not posted any current info, that means their mod is dead/abandoned, and that opens the doors for good samaritans to hastily release forks to feed the hysteria.... Hence there will likely be more clashes between upcoming "official" releases and hastily made community forks/fixes...

In NO way do i want to discourage anyone from going ahead and jumping in to fork or update old mods... Just know that some thought, research, AND attempts at communication with the mod dev REALLY needs to be done before starting work on updating someone else's mod...

And for mod devs, PLEASE hold off on completely removing 1.0.5 from release threads/hosting...
I can understand putting a hold on fixes/support for 1.0.5 versions, but beyond that, pretty PLEASE leave release thread titles and everything else up for at least another month or two (after 1.1 FULL release drops)... ??

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Stone Blue

[ferram4]

The modders that have pulled 1.0.5 releases have brought trouble on themselves and the ones that have updated for 1.1 and proudly announce it have brought trouble on themselves, butmodders like me haven't.  I shouldn't get hell because some other modders were quick to declare a pre-release stable.  And beyond that, why are we giving users a pass?!  You're people that are capable of making decisions and getting blame just like modders are.

Let's face it, if the community (whatever the hell that means) was capable of remembering that it's a pre-release, acting like patient adults, and generally acting like the testers they always said they wanted to be leading up to the pre-release, there wouldn't be any issue.  But instead everyone has acted like 1.1 isn't a pre-release.  Unfortunately, the builds haven't had enough gamebreaking issues to remind everyone that it's a pre-release they should be testing, not a game they should be modding for giggles.  The funny thing is that we learned all of this before when experimentals became private many, many, many KSP versions ago.

[AHO]

@Stone Blue and @ferram4 I agree completely. I have been shocked at the sheer amount of people who have updated mods to 1.1 and acting like it's the full actual release and not the pre-release. And when I've attempted to download mods for 1.0.5, I am often dismayed to find out that I cannot download them as the mod devs pulled the 1.0.5 version.

 

Keep in mind I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just frustrated that some modders aren't treating 1.1 like a pre-release.

I'm glad everyone seems to be handling this maturely though.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I'm pretty happy to see that so many modders here, in a commercial game community, release their code with permissive licenses allowing others to learn from it, use it, and improve on it. Most of the cases I've come across where people have patched other's mods for 1.1 they have explicitly stated that the fix is a band-aid and not official- they should really start a new thread and rename it a bit though to keep pressure of the current maintainers.

[Vanamonde]

Since this seems to be an issue related specifically to modding, the thread has been moved to the modding subforum. 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I am having the slight notion for a while now that this community is changing from a great place to spend your time to a weird bunch of spoiled "Kids".

I faced great hostility more than once when I posted unpopular Ideas into the Suggestions-Forums.
Instead of seeding a discussion on the topic I only got told how wrong I am and how this thread is the "most stupid of the month" and how I could bring up something like that.

I know I went off-topic up there, but I only want to point out, that some people on here really need to get their attitude back on track.

I am thankfull for everyone of the modders that made KSP an even more enjoyable game than it already is.

Thank you!

[EladDv]

Yeah i've been drifting away from the forums for some time now- all started back when 1.0 launched as @MalfunctionM1Ke said - it feels like a bunch of entitled "Kids" came in and now believe they call all the shots and that they are above the rest of the community, i've seen a major dropoff in some areas in the forums and quality of discussion is clearly worse ever since 1.0, dont be mistaken I love the idea of having more people and more players for KSP my only gripe is the disrespect i've encountered here on the forums and that should be fixed.

[Ser]

I am totally agree with the OP. Before touching someone else's mod you should ask his permission even if the mods license lets you do everything. That would be fair and respectful for the mod's author.

 

7 hours ago, ferram4 said:

1. Anyone maintaining a modlist for dev builds of mods for a pre-release build of KSP.  What benefit does this provide, besides ensuring that modders are discouraged from pushing in-dev code to avoid the most impatient uses rushing in to play with something that isn't even certain to function?

 

I've posted my pre-releases in such a thread. I don't mind if someone uses my mods if he needs them in 1.1. People could report bugs I'm unable to find yet because I don't play 1.1 pre-release. If it is a certain bug then I'll fix it, if not, I could just refuse to fix until official release. Of course, I can afford that because I don't get so much hassle as you do.

And I also agree that publishing mod releases for unstable KSP version just causes a lot of confusion "Why the mod is broken now if it has been recently tested and released?", but I think it's normal to post a link to a dev version. In fact, they are already posted at github and everyone who is clever enough can get them if he wants them so much.

[HebaruSan]

49 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

why are we giving users a pass?!  You're people that are capable of making decisions and getting blame just like modders are.

I don't think anyone's giving bad users a pass; anyone nagging a mod author for new releases or status updates is clearly a vile subhuman piece of filth undeserving of any mods at all (moderators: please note tongue in cheek hyperbole). But the problem is that there are many more users than modders, and in large numbers, people behave statistically. A few will be good and helpful, most will be silent and invisible, and a few will be a massive pain in the nozzle. ALWAYS. Guess which ones you're going to interact with most?

And if we want to change what's happening on the forums, modders are a much easier lever to pull than users, partly because they're fewer in number, partly because they're on average much more expert and mature. If this situation can be improved, it'll be by establishing clear expectations and best practices and bringing modders on board with them as leaders.

For what it's worth, I think your approach is the best one, and I wish all modders had followed it: update privately, distribute to peers only to help with testing dependencies, but release nothing until the official release, and state that plan explicitly.

Edited April 10, 2016 by HebaruSan

[Stone Blue]

Just wanted to clear up that my previous post was not meant to single out "sides" or point fingers...
Everyone just needs to realize that any "release fever" going around, is not caused by any one group... Unfortunately, there has just been many variables and circumstances surrounding the pre-release, by EVERYBODY,  (Squad included ) that could have been avoided or dealt with better...

Hopefully, if Squad DOES decide to follow the current method of public pre-release, in the future, EVERYONE will have learned something this time around and things will be better next time...

[Ser]

1 hour ago, MalfunctionM1Ke said:

I am having the slight notion for a while now that this community is changing from a great place to spend your time to a weird bunch of spoiled "Kids".

I faced great hostility more than once when I posted unpopular Ideas into the Suggestions-Forums.
Instead of seeding a discussion on the topic I only got told how wrong I am and how this thread is the "most stupid of the month" and how I could bring up something like that.

I know I went off-topic up there, but I only want to point out, that some people on here really need to get their attitude back on track.

I am thankfull for everyone of the modders that made KSP an even more enjoyable game than it already is.

Thank you!

That's normal for the growing community. People are different and some of them are mentally unstable. I think that KSP community started to grow much faster when the game was released to Steam. At that moment it has started to receive members from wide audience, not only the true adepts. Well, that is necessary for further game development and survival. You can just ignore inadequate sentences or you always have an option to report the most desperate posts.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Ser

[AlphaAsh]

I don't get any of this. I release versions of mods because I want my mods tested in KSP 1.1. If someone decides to use one of my mods in 1.1 without getting that simple fact, it's not my responsibility for any possible whining or whatever that comes from them.

Obviously I haven't purposefully pulled any versions for 1.0.5 but KerbalStuff's demise may have left some mods for 1.0.5 without a host and it's entirely up to those modders if they choose to re-host them.

I assume that those using my mods are intelligent enough to know the what's what. If they don't, well, they get ignored. I'm not not releasing versions of my mods for the smarter users.

EDIT

From ferram4's post:

Quote

...the ones that have updated for 1.1 and proudly announce it have brought trouble on themselves, butmodders like me haven't.  I shouldn't get hell because some other modders were quick to declare a pre-release stable.  And beyond that, why are we giving users a pass?!  You're people that are capable of making decisions and getting blame just like modders are....

I bolded the bit I'm agreeing with. That other bit, not so much.

Edited April 10, 2016 by AlphaAsh

[AHO]

I was originally going to give an angry response to @AlphaAsh's comment but I thought the better of it. Honestly we've been getting progressively angrier and more bitter and instead of solving the problem we've made it worse and, I admit, I made the problem worse as well but I think we should step back and try not to make any impassioned accusitory comments in the future.

 

I admit that I made things worse by my accusatory comment earlier. I did not intend to cause any harm and I now recognize my error. Hopefully we will be happier in the future and come to a point of understanding.

[fireblade274]

On 4/10/2016 at 1:46 PM, Ser said:

People are different and some of them are mentally unstable

lol 

[RoverDude]

I'm actually with @AlphaAsh here.  I had pre-release versions of everything I make day one for the specific purpose of letting folks help me find bugs (and with about a dozen mods and over 400 parts... yeah, there are lots of little things that got missed).  But then I also made sure I kept the last stable 1.0.5 and made it clear that these were pre-release ones so folks could help me find issues.