subhuman_bob

There has traditionally been a good amount of cooperation between all three groups.* Granted, most of it occurs "behind the scenes" where you can't see it- but it does occur. Think about it- NTSC was both SD2 and MaNGOS dev. NoFantasy both SD2 and UDB. Neo2003 UDB and MaNGOS. How can a person not cooperate with themselves? Support for each project is given at that project's website- by request of parties involved. Example: a while back, we had a SD2 support area at UDB forums. Ntsc requested that we remove it and direct SD2 bugs to be posted at SD2 forums. He had a valid reason- when he goes looking for bug reports, it's quickest to search just one forum instead of several forums. Can you imagine the headache for the users also if they had to look at three forums to see if their bug was already reported? UDB no longer has a SD2 bug area, and we direct people with SD2 problems to the SD2 forums. This isn't because of some sort of stare-down between the groups. Once you get the full information behind why it's done, it's an example of cooperation instead of an example of a stare-down. This is why UDB directs people to MaNGOS forum for MaNGOS support, and why we direct people to SD2 forum for SD2 support. With MaNGOS forum it's even more difficult, as there are multiple DBs out there. How can you really expect MaNGOS to even begin to offer support for all of them? For a while, there were two scripting projects also. As for accepting patches, both UDB and MaNGOS avoid workarounds whenever possible. If you look around, there are numerous DBC values, creature flags, gameobject flags, etc that we still have no idea what they mean. Figure out what means what is the biggest part of fixing everything. If (as you described it) some unheard of person figures it out, great! That brings us one step closer to fixing the problems. Sometimes an "unheard of person" is exactly what is needed- a different perspective to look at the problem differently and find a solution. *I say there was traditionally cooperation between the projects. Those who recently cooperated less, have moved on by their own choice. Cooperation should continue again in the future, as it did in the past. Personally I prefer a command-line interface to a GUI. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule here, but I prefer its interface. You say it alienates people from what they're familiar with- but I have to point out that I wasn't familiar with SVN before I started using MaNGOS. So that pretty much nullifies that argument. Any Linux user damn well better be familiar with using a command-line interface. Maybe it's better phrased as "it confuses mouse jockeys because now they have to type instead of just click." I also have to point out that there was a high amount of complaints with SVN as well. If we want to start with complaints, I haven't been able to find an OS/2-port of Git for my eComStation box. However, as far as I know, I'm one of two people who use this OS for pulling in source code- so it's not really worth bitching about.

Why would they want that? What would be gained? For some time, MaNGOS has been among the top BW consumers on Sourceforge. Sourceforge has not been overly happy with this. Git uses much less BW than SVN does. Applying Occam's Razor leads to the logical conclusion that this was done to reduce bandwidth consumed, instead of the illogical conclusion that devs are trying to drive away community members.