Magic Lantern Forum

General Discussion => Magic Lantern Forum and Site Discussion => Topic started by: nanomad on March 19, 2014, 08:37:15 PM

Title: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 19, 2014, 08:37:15 PM
During the last 3 years, the development of Magic Lantern has shifted from an almost single-dev hobby project, into something more collaborative, with several people contributing to the project. We feel that the right development model for Magic Lantern is something similar to the Linux kernel.  A group of core contributors make changes that go directly into the “official” builds, and other users contribute by submitting pull requests.  Inevitably, forks of the project will be created for the purpose of adding features and fixing bugs.  We encourage these forks and recommend forking as the best method to submit patches to the main repository.

Recently, one actively popular fork began moving in a direction dangerously far away from the main repository, by adding experimental patches that weren’t pulled back to the main repository for collaboration.  As a result, these patches were relatively untested on some cameras and could not be confirmed as safe for all models.

Until recently, 3 ports (EOS-M (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741.0), 6D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904.0), and 7D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9848.0)) were maintained almost completely on the Tragic Lantern fork and not in the main repository.  It has become increasingly harder to merge patches from Tragic Lantern into the Magic Lantern repository

We feel that the current situation only serves to create confusion among users, split the community, and duplicate development efforts. This makes merging harder than rewriting these features and fixes from scratch, and clutters the forum with duplicate requests, issues and development discussion.

Therefore, we have decided to drop any form of official support for these kind of forks.

Starting a week from this announcement, we will begin actively enforcing this decision by dissolving support of the Tragic Lantern fork, as well as any other fork, that fails to follow the guidelines presented here.


This decision is based solely on the forking of Magic Lantern, and ensuring that these forks do not interfere with the core values set forth by the Magic Lantern development team.  1%, the maintainer of Tragic Lantern, and other users, are free to fork and do whatever they wish with the project.  This decision should not be considered as a personal attack towards 1%, or other users, who maintain their forks in a manner that is suitable for themselves.  We respect the development by all members, including development that moves away from the direction of Magic Lantern.

However, in the end, only the main repository (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/overview) can be called Magic Lantern and be supported on this website for all of the reasons listed within.


I’m a user, what does this mean for me?
Tragic Lantern usage and discussion will no longer be accepted on this forum. Please continue discussion about the Magic Lantern ports in these threads: 50D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9852.0), 7D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9848.0), EOS-M (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741.0), 6D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904.0), 600D.

But, I found a bug! What should I do now?
If you feel you have found a bug, please open a bug report on the Tragic Lantern bug tracker (https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-6d/issues?status=new&status=open). If, after testing the latest nightly build of Magic Lantern for your camera you find that the bug applies to Magic Lantern too, please open a ticket here (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/issues?status=new&status=open).

How can I help smooth the transition?
Users are more than welcome to point out the differences between Tragic Lantern and Magic Lantern on their cameras here (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10593.0), in order to assist developers in knowing exactly what to merge back to mainline.  It is strongly encouraged that users and developers take priority in getting the 3 ports (EOS-M (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741.0), 6D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904.0), and 7D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9848.0)) to a stable state where they can be maintained by Magic Lantern.

It is hoped that this will solve a number of issues, including, getting these ports supported in Magic Lantern, and creating a situation whereby it is easier for fork maintainers to create pull requests.

What about existing threads and posts?
Any remaining threads about Tragic Lantern will be moved to this section (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=58.0). Next week they will be locked out and put in read-only mode
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: l_d_allan on March 20, 2014, 11:58:46 AM
My impression is that people do make monetary donations to the ML project. I have no idea how much this amounts to, if anything.

Would it be possible for the ML project to purchase a 6d for use by one of the core Devs? If so, they wouldn't be proceeding with "blind" development and support.

Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Marsu42 on March 20, 2014, 12:38:11 PM
We feel that the right development model for Magic Lantern is something similar to the Linux kernel.

I'd wish for that because this includes a good system of merge window and point releases after bugfixing, the current "rolling release" model imho encourages newbies to use the rather untested nightly as stable and prevents expermiental patches/modules from being merged.

We encourage these forks and recommend forking as the best method to submit patches to the main repository.

... unless you're a core dev, in which case you just create a branch and implicitly hand it down to every other fork out there :-p as when a branch is merged/closed in the ML repo it isn't closed in forked repos :- \

Starting a week from this announcement, we will begin actively enforcing this decision by dissolving support of the Tragic Lantern fork, as well as any other fork, that fails to follow the guidelines presented here.

It's sad it has come to that, but as I wrote numerous times I understand the decision and hope 1% will continue to merge back some TL adaptions as I'm currently using 6D ML and don't want to switch to TL again.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 20, 2014, 12:53:41 PM
My impression is that people do make monetary donations to the ML project. I have no idea how much this amounts to, if anything.

Would it be possible for the ML project to purchase a 6d for use by one of the core Devs? If so, they wouldn't be proceeding with "blind" development and support.

I personally feel that 1% work has been ok so far. The issue is, we had a lack of contributions back to the main ML tree which prompted this decision (after long, long thinking and delaying)

I'd wish for that because this includes a good system of merge window and point releases after bugfixing, the current "rolling release" model imho encourages newbies to use the rather untested nightly as stable and prevents expermiental patches/modules from being merged.

Yeah, me too. The real issue is that it's a hobby project for many of us and no one wants to deal with managing "another" release cycle (the ones I'm doing at work are enough). Nothing forbids users from making a team and working toward a stable-ish release. As always, I can provide help and tools if needed. Jus ask nicely :P



... unless you're a core dev, in which case you just create a branch and implicitly hand it down to every other fork out there :-p as when a branch is merged/closed in the ML repo it isn't closed in forked repos :- \
That's interesting and something I'll have to investigate.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ayshih on March 20, 2014, 01:58:22 PM
... unless you're a core dev, in which case you just create a branch and implicitly hand it down to every other fork out there :-p as when a branch is merged/closed in the ML repo it isn't closed in forked repos :- \

That's weird; I'm pretty sure that branch closures are logged as commits in Mercurial, so closures on the main repo should propagate to forks, but maybe it depends on how you are merging in updates from the main repo.  I believe I've only closed branches in my fork when they have been merged in the main repo but not yet actually closed there.

Fortunately, assuming you keep a clean unified (which I'd highly recommend), Bitbucket does not consider such branches as "active" and will hide such branches by default.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 20, 2014, 02:13:46 PM
That's weird; I'm pretty sure that branch closures are logged as commits in Mercurial, so closures on the main repo should propagate to forks,

They should do.  They do here.


And you can close your own branches easily.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/gf78zqxzf/branch.png)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/40kgze3wb/branch1.png)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: dmilligan on March 20, 2014, 04:20:15 PM
They should do.  They do here.

Nope. They don't.

Branches closures don't propagate to clones (forks) via the bitbucket interface. I think this is b/c the "sync" button in bitbucket only pulls changes on the main branch. Commits from branches that have been merged into the main obviously get propagated in (so new branches are created), but since 'close a branch' is a commit to that specific branch, the change isn't pulled over. It's quite annoying to have to be constantly closing a bunch of branches each time I 'sync' my fork, which currently I have to do.

Perhaps somebody (*cough* me) should submit a bug report to bitbucket. Really 'sync' should pull changes from all branches, or at least there should be an option too.

The work around is to pull changes to your local repo, directly from the main repo (add hudson/magic-lantern as a remote) and then push those changes to your bitbucket fork, thus circumventing the 'sync' button in bitbucket.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ayshih on March 20, 2014, 04:31:35 PM
The work around is to pull changes to your local repo, directly from the main repo (add hudson/magic-lantern as a remote) and then push those changes to your bitbucket fork, thus circumventing the 'sync' button in bitbucket.

Ah, okay, I do in fact pull from the main repo as a remote.  I wasn't clear what Bitbucket's "sync" actually did!  What you call a workaround is what I would call the proper way to work with Mercurial. :)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 20, 2014, 04:34:16 PM
I think this is b/c the "sync" button in bitbucket only pulls changes on the main branch.

This is the reason why I moved to controlling my repository locally.

Since you have to work locally to actually create a build, I would exactly call local management of your repository, a work around.
Why else would you need to control your repository online, except to keep a backup, and create pull requests?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: dmilligan on March 20, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
b/c I have multiple computers that I work on (and thus multiple clones of my fork). I like for everything to flow one direction.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 21, 2014, 02:43:54 AM
Heh, I have enough trouble trying to maintain 1 local copy.

Here you go  :)
https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/BITBUCKET/Forking+a+Repository

See compare, under Using the Bitbucket GUI to sync your fork to the original repo.

Note:  You have to create the branch in you repository first.  Then you can merge a branch from mainline into the branch in your own repository.  You can only merge to an existing branch, I didn't see a way to create the branch while merging.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 02:56:51 PM
I hope the major forum changes that were announced do not impede any development for the M, 6D and 7D. Splitting the community is not good. I don't know why such claims are made to scare people away from using TL when I have used the daily builds on my M since last July without having any problems. Nor have I seen anyone reporting any terrible problems from using TL. I am not taking sides and I have no disrespect for anyone here at ML.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 21, 2014, 03:16:36 PM
Who started the community split in the first place? Who took ML code, tweaked it a little and refused to give the changes back? Who took over the ML development threads and left the main codebase outdated?

FYI, more than 90% of what you are running is Magic Lantern code, and more than 70% of it was written with my own hands.

Please study the commit history and give credit where credit is due.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 03:40:05 PM
Who started the community split in the first place? Who took ML code, tweaked it a little and refused to give the changes back? Who took over the ML development threads and left the main codebase outdated?

FYI, more than 90% of what you are running is Magic Lantern code, and more than 70% of it was written with my own hands.

Please study the commit history and give credit where credit is due.
I was not aware of a commit history. I am not taking sides and I have respect for everyone. I will edit my post. My concern is to not split the community. We all need each other. it would probably be good to also hear from 1% and to try and work things out. I know you all have tried in the past and it's obvious it will now take some more effort. We need everyone to work together.

I hope you, Alex, and some others realize that the rest of us out here do not know what is going on behind the scenes or the the real history, such as the development for the M and some other cameras.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 21, 2014, 03:45:46 PM
That's why we are trying to undo the community split, so everybody is invited to switch to Magic Lantern (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741) (where most of the innovation happens anyway). If there are still differences between ML and TL, these should be backported (but for EOS-M I can help mostly with advice, because I don't use one myself).

If any of you still wants to continue with the community split, you are free to do that on some other website, not here.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 03:54:52 PM
Who took ML code, tweaked it a little and refused to give the changes back?
I agree. Why would anyone not share and give back to the parent? Can you take what is current in TL and see what is there and apply it to ML? I am sorry I am not a dev and understand the workings of it all. How will it all end up? I mean, will ML lack what TL has done or will it just take longer for ML to develop what was there? Or, will ML just not try to progress in those areas for certain cameras? What does TL have that ML does not have right now for say, my camera, the M? From what I have seen, on ML I do not see video hacks and RAW recording, just MLV. Probably more, I don't know.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 03:58:15 PM
That's why we are trying to undo the community split, so everybody is invited to switch to Magic Lantern (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741) (where most of the innovation happens anyway). If there are still differences between ML and TL, these should be backported (but for EOS-M I can help mostly with advice, because I don't use one myself).

If any of you still wants to continue with the community split, you are free to do that on some other website, not here.
Is 1% the only dev who has an M? I remember way back that Max was willing to donate his M camera to ML to use but no one accepted his offer. I think he said he had two M cameras.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 21, 2014, 04:18:41 PM
Can you take what is current in TL and see what is there and apply it to ML?
Yes, the thread I've linked is pretty much about that, but this process is very difficult without cooperation from 1%. In the past, all of us ML devs have attempted to port many of the TL changes blindly (without a camera to test on) and we have also tried to ask for the help of other developers (with only partial success; the progress was not as fast as we would like, and these ports are not yet as robust as on 5D3 or 5D2, for example).

Fortunately, he did share some of his changes lately (mostly from 7D/6D). But this should be the normal development flow, just like all other code contributions to ML, not "backflow" as 1% calls it.

Nanomad also has an EOS-M and he did some good progress with TL backporting. But, since ML is a spare-time project for all of us, progress is not always as fast as we would like, so we prefer not to waste further development resources on private forks.

If you are not familiar with the how open source contributions should work, you can get an idea here:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/112458/forking-an-open-source-project-nicely
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Dec-31.html
http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/forking-protocol-why-when-and-how-to-fork-an-open-source-project/
http://www.kaizou.org/2013/04/three-golden-rules-open-source/
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 04:42:29 PM
Yes, the thread I've linked is pretty much about that, but this process is very difficult without cooperation from 1%. In the past, all of us ML devs have attempted to port many of the TL changes blindly (without a camera to test on) and we have also tried to ask for the help of other developers (with only partial success; the progress was not as fast as we would like, and these ports are not yet as robust as on 5D3 or 5D2, for example).

Fortunately, he did share some of his changes lately (mostly from 7D/6D). But this should be the normal development flow, just like all other code contributions to ML, not "backflow" as 1% calls it.

Nanomad also has an EOS-M and he did some good progress with TL backporting. But, since ML is a spare-time project for all of us, progress is not always as fast as we would like, so we prefer not to waste further development resources on private forks.

If you are not familiar with the how open source contributions should work, you can get an idea here:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/112458/forking-an-open-source-project-nicely
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Dec-31.html
http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/forking-protocol-why-when-and-how-to-fork-an-open-source-project/
http://www.kaizou.org/2013/04/three-golden-rules-open-source/
Alex,

Thank you for explaining these things. Hopefully, 1% will respond and tell us things from his point of view. Maybe it can all be worked out for the best.

Best regards,
Gary
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 21, 2014, 04:42:59 PM
For clarity, the forking mentioned in the articles shared by a1ex, refer specifically to forks that become direct competition.

Taking the original codebase, and actively maintaining a separate codebase, in public, and without pushing the changes back to the original development project.

Open source is not a competition, it is collaboration.

Forking a project, for the purpose of actively developing your own features and fixes, and pushing those changes back into the original development project, is good etiquette, and helps to further improve the project.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: 1% on March 21, 2014, 06:41:35 PM
I don't really want to argue about this as its not helping anyone. My sole reason for having a separate code base was that certain things just don't get accepted into the main repository or are deemed as too something, be it "dangerous", useless, not spaced properly, not important enough, etc.

The kickoff was movie remap on 600D. It was the only camera I had, the modes are on opposite sides of the dial. The feature had been working for a long while and then it caused problems on 60D and was pulled from 600D. It really killed usability. People complained but yeah, what can they do. So I thought since I'm already compiling this to get the latest changes why don't I just put it back, I'm willing to take the risk. I posted an autoexec in the downloads of the repo in case anyone wanted to use it for themselves. Nobody really cared.

Then I wanted audio controls and better video so I worked on those, from knowing nothing to knowing a little. Tested and tried, got some help and we got something going. Still nobody cared so much. I saw other people try to code things, they languished in the pull requests section but I wanted to try it that day so I pulled the changes in and tried them. Sometimes it had to be done by hand + fixed. It was pretty addicting and I learned a bunch on coding and reverse engineering. I was having fun.

So at least a year or so goes by and there are many refactors, yada yada. Things become incompatible, there are major changes. Manual merges I have to spend hours on, etc. I figure its my problem oh well. I'm not the best coder or the neatest. I try to help reverse engineer and figure things out. Sometimes it gets into the main repo, sometimes not. More people are using the 600D builds. The video stuff is deemed useless/dangerous/etc.

Then I end up with a few more camera bodies. I see how hard it is to support this many. I find many things that just needed a little fixing and share my results. Some of it is ported back, some of it is not. At this point I don't know how to work pull requests yet so coutts ports the 6D stuff back to main and the nightly works. Some stuff gets turned off but hey, main is supposed to be stable. All is well, right?

Guess not, as more people just go for my downloads this drama develops. A1ex views it as competition and as his time isn't infinite doesn't want to go through and pull out the good code, or use stuff the doesn't agree with (esp. blindly). I'm having trouble at this point maintaining + testing 5 cameras, it takes a long time. I can only shoot with one at a time, I'm a shitty coder.  Users come in with questions and unreasonable demands about ML and TL and now people are downloading my builds instead of his so its even more of a thankless job. Most of the main code is his and naturally he gets pissed off.

So I learn how to push stuff back and at the same time ask users to help. EOSM gets ported back. After all, neither of us here can do all of it and still have any kind of life. The only thanks is really having happy users and maybe getting cool stuff happening in your own projects/uses. Yea, speaking of that, I have drama here. I pretty likely have to sell + move to another state or get involved in a legal battle where I win but really gain nothing besides more expenses and the same shitty life. I've been doing contract work for all the time I've been working on ML (see where all that free time came from?). But yes, all, this is not your problem. you just want camera software. On top of that the implication FEELS like throw out your work and cease to exist. I'm probably going to be late because I sat and typed this out and maybe it got a little shitily written towards the end.

Anyways, these are/were my motivations. I just don't feel good about any of the hostility or schism from what essentially is my first real coding project and mostly a thankless labor of love. At the same time I don't like letting ML down and pissing off A1ex to the point he wants to quit. So everything seems like its burning and I feel like shit and there you go.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 07:02:28 PM
1%, I have always been happy with what you have done. As I have said a few times now, I have never had any problems with your TL on my M using every daily build since last July. I know how you feel. I have "been there and done that" a few times in my life. Thank you very much for all your hard work.

Best regards,
Gary
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 21, 2014, 07:18:40 PM
A developers resume, is his code.

As projects extend towards large scale development, naturally, standards are raised.  With increased standards, comes improved coding abilities.  After all, Magic Lantern is a development project. 

This is a benefit to the greater community.  Both the developers, who increase their abilities, and end users, who get the fruits of that labor.

1%, your efforts have never been unrecognized, or unappreciated (that I am aware of).  However, the core development team has clearly set a constitution in the best interests of the development project, and surely you can understand, that if your own personal objectives do not fit within this constitution, for whatever reason, then inevitably, actions needed to be taken in the best interest of the Magic Lantern development project.

As I think I have mentioned previously, you are clearly having some personal issues.  This is fine, we all have them.  This is not an attack on you personally, in any shape or form.  Perhaps though, you might be better served by taking actions necessary to the well being of yourself.  Maybe you already do that, I don't know.  I do however, know that, you sir, as a person, are significantly more important then this development project.

I wish you all the best, in whatever direction you take.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 21, 2014, 07:36:59 PM
1%, I sent you a PM. Please let me know when you get it.
Thank you, Gary2013.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: cpreston on March 21, 2014, 08:30:49 PM
I also want to thank !% for all of the work he did.  I have both a 6D and an EOSM along with a 60D and a C100.  Without ML/TL, I find the Canon DSLR's to be nearly useless for video work.  I absolutely love using ML and on my 60D and can't thank a1ex and the rest of the early team enough.  I consider it a reliable B-Cam for my C100.  Sometimes, though, the 6D or EOSM fit my needs more due to size or lowlight, and I wouldn't want to use those at all without the work that 1% put in.  Thank you.

 Also, I'm glad that this change to support for TL/ML is being made as I hope it will ultimately lead to more stable builds for all of the current Canons.  For those of us who are either new to ML and looking for reliable video camera and intervalometer features, or who use DSLR's on paying gigs, anything that improves stability and consistency is greatly appreciated.  Again, thank you to the entire team for basically creating a fully featured video and photo camera out of a consumer oriented camera.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Marsu42 on March 21, 2014, 09:41:31 PM
I agree. Why would anyone not share and give back to the parent?

Because writing some patches with  trashy commit comments for personal use (like I also do) is quick, but doing proper patches for merging back is much more work as you usually also have to discuss and adapt the code again after review.

Also if you're not a core dev, at the end of the day you can only hope and wait if something is accepted or not as you're having no influence on the development policy. So if some of your patches aren't accepted but you of course still want to use them, you inevitably end up with a personal ML fork as 1% did ... and he was nice enough to share it rather than use a private repo.

But yes, all, this is not your problem. you just want camera software.

Not necessarily, or people wouldn't be writing here :-o

On top of that the implication FEELS like throw out your work and cease to exist.

I understand you're feeling an attachment for your work and for people using it (like probably every ML coder does), but you somehow managed to make it appear like you wouldn't mind all 6d/7d/m users to use TL while ML didn't even compile for some time. Given the part of code written by other people, this just couldn't have worked out.

I was happy to see when you merged back some TL code, but obviously it was too little too late - but still I do really hope you will continue to do so as you are are nice to talk with and I cannot thank you enough for bringing ML to the 6d.

Anyways, these are/were my motivations. I just don't feel good about any of the hostility or schism from what essentially is my first real coding project and mostly a thankless labor of love. At the same time I don't like letting ML down and pissing off A1ex to the point he wants to quit. So everything seems like its burning and I feel like shit and there you go.

I'd like to note that at least I am in no way hostile, though I understand the current motivation and think a clear cut is for the best, even if you currently might not feel that way. Maybe try to see it this way: as TL has more experimental patches and crashes more often any confusion with ML is better avoided, even if I use your beep code in my personal ML 6d repo.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 22, 2014, 09:21:15 AM
Anyways, these are/were my motivations. I just don't feel good about any of the hostility or schism from what essentially is my first real coding project and mostly a thankless labor of love. At the same time I don't like letting ML down and pissing off A1ex to the point he wants to quit. So everything seems like its burning and I feel like shit and there you go.

I know sometimes we may come off rude or uneducated but trust me that's not the intention. There's no hostility. Quite the contrary in fact. We see potential that just needs to be put to use properly. You did a great job starting and mantaining the 6D/EOSM/50D ports in TL and I see no reason why you shouldn't be contribuiting more back to ML.

True, your patches may have to go through the review process and may be declined or you will be asked to re-write them substantially. But that's what we have started doing too. Work in a branch, submit a PR and ask for a review.
Your latest efforts are not "too little too late". If anything, they are showing that this model may work for ML.

Declaring TL or any other "fork that went too far" as unsupported and out of the scope of this forum is just a way to give devs a push toward the proper direction.  That's the intention, at least.

Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jayzed on March 23, 2014, 04:06:53 PM
I have been thrilled with ML since I first installed it on my 7D but when the exciting 5D raw features started to come through it felt a bit like the 7D had been orphaned. I am not complaining, not for a second.  I was, and still am, very impressed. I was booting ML every time I started my camera and accepted the fact that the 7D was old, difficult to work with and probably not as common with ML users as other cameras. I was content and grateful for the work that had been done.
Then I purchased a third party AC adaptor and discovered that loading ML for the 7D while in an alpha stage confused booting via the AC adaptor. I couldn't use ML with the adaptor as it stood and had to forgo using it whenever I wanted to use ML. I accepted this, of course, but one day I was browsing the ML forums to deal with some other issue when I saw mention of TL. I installed it (at my own risk, as is regularly and legitimately stated) simply to allow autobooting. Not really understanding why there was a separate version I became more and more excited as raw recording started to work. I continued to occasionally install TL updates whenever I saw that there were more features I might be interested in and when the testing done by others showed the build to be relatively stable.
After a while I was content and settled on a version. I set the camera to the best possible performance and was very happy with the situation.
But then the audio feature with raw appeared - I was in heaven! Everything I could possibly ask for out of this creaking old system was now possible and I was recording real work with the camera. Again, I settled on a version but came back occasionally to see if there were any performance improvements and/or bug fixes.  In the meantime (January) I was recording raw with backup production audio into MLV rec and couldn't believe my luck. I even decided not to buy an upgrade, I had 90% of what I wanted on my 7D already - I could wait.
That's when I started to see the comments about forks and 'rogue' builds. Although I am naïve about open source code versioning systems, it made sense to me. I saw the work done to merge the code into the main build and, wanting to be a responsible member of the community, installed the new ML builds with the intention of switching over and that would be that. However, the performance was disappointing and there was no audio so I 'downgraded' back to TL. I suppose this is one of the reasons that the ML team wants to keep things together - to keep expectations reasonable whilst keeping the code base consistent but it seems the horse has bolted on the principle here.
As someone who (very gratefully) uses the work of both A1ex (and Gagg0 and team) as well as 1%, I am hugely disappointed that it has come to this situation. I would very much like it if we could keep the TL work within the community until it's possible to merge into the ML stream. Although from what I have read here it's not a simple process and may not ever happen completely.
OK, I understand why it's important and agree with all the arguments but we have a mostly working TL version with excellent features and good performance along with information from people who have tested in quite a lot of detail to tell us what the best settings are. My concern is that all the hard work that has been done will go to waste and we'll never see equivalence on the main ML stream for the 7D. As people are doing this in their spare time I can't imagine what the motivation to improve the 7D build would be, it's an old camera and is about to be declared end-of-line, it doesn't have the x-factor of the 5D III or whatever is going to replace it. The TL version seems to me to be almost there with every possible theoretical improvement (maybe I am I wrong, are there any other magic features being considered for this camera?). A few more of the modules added and a few bug fixes would make it as close to the ML main stream as it's likely to be feature-wise (this is in my somewhat ignorant understanding - I know nothing about coding beyond basic HTML although I think I understand in principle the issues raised by A1ex). Perhaps with these tweaks it then could be frozen?
I'll accept it if I'm told to get back in my box here, I'm sure I don't fully understand the details. But I am very grateful to 1% for all the additional work, without any reduction in my admiration for the main team. I have effectively had two new cameras for free in the last year, first the original ML and then TL. I am once again prepared to settle on the latest, most stable version of TL if I have to but it feels like it would be a bit of a shame.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 23, 2014, 04:21:49 PM
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10593.0
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jayzed on March 23, 2014, 04:55:59 PM
Excellent! Thanks audionut.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: flavediller on March 28, 2014, 04:55:57 AM
I'd just like to jump in and thank ML and TL and 1% and A1ex and honestly EVERYONE who has done any coding at all for this. Honestly. Its insane what you guys have done. I'm a professional cinematographer who works on a tight budget and with no added expense my ability to produce quality material has gone through the roof thanks to the magic of magic lantern and tragic lantern and everyone. Regardless of who did this or who did that....I want to make sure that you all understand that I (as a representative of the "end-user") is more appreciative than you guys will EVER KNOW. (and let me add that I am personally unaware of the names and details of the coding people...or really how the whole system or hierarchy works so I don't want to leave anyone out when I say thank you. If you are ANY part of the team I don't mean to exclude you!)

All of that being said...and please forgive my possible ignorance here...but if there a way to see the 7d Raw Thread that seems to be now closed? I won't complain about any decisions that are made regarding splitting or combining groups or whatever; its certainly not my right or concern. There is, however, a LOT of useful information (especially for people starting out) in that original 7d Raw Thread and I think it would be a shame to lose it. Maybe if necessary it could be locked so there are no more posts on it but still available to read?

Anyway those are my thoughts and let me say again that you guys have ALREADY done the impossible and ALREADY achieved miracles. Seriously. Not even kidding here. Raw high resolution video on my old canon DSLR? CRAZY!!! and amazing! THANK YOU ALL.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 28, 2014, 05:14:11 AM
That 7D raw thread was 104 pages long.  Ideally, any useful information needs to be compiled into 1 single post, to make it useful.

If someone is very familiar with that thread, and wants to compile the information into a new thread (nothing TL related), I can move the thread into a visible section of the forums for a short time, until the new thread is created.

Discuss amongst yourselves, and PM me when you are ready to proceed.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: simulacro on March 28, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
Can please anyone tell 50d TL users where is their thread? :'(

First, thanks to Everyone for their contributions to the ML project, specially the Hero members, they made something amazing for amateurs like me and real professionals. The potential of eos cameras is now beyond what any optimistic technician would have thought.

With all respect...
I'm very surprised to see what has happened. I saw the 50d TL thread disappear and now i'm lost. Even though i'm using an old version (31 oct) I read everyday the updates to see the progress of the project. I always saw TL as part of the ML project, because there are contributions from several people. I read the whole 50d thread and now that thread is lost, because the reasons A1ex an 1% told us. That's fine. But you, as Hero members, have a responsability with the users of your development. That was your decision when you made this project public, for the use of other people. That's what i think closing the 50d TL thread is not correct (without relinking or redirecting to a new forum).

Maybe i don't have the right to say this, please forgive my dare
 
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Marsu42 on March 28, 2014, 01:12:46 PM
Can please anyone tell 50d TL users where is their thread? :'(

Read the first post of this thread or look here directly: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=58.0
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: simulacro on March 28, 2014, 01:22:24 PM
I have this message:

Quote
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you

Maybe I'm losing something
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Marsu42 on March 28, 2014, 01:25:06 PM
Maybe I'm losing something

Ugh? Seems to be divided in to user classes, /me as a big important hero member can access it. Just write enough forum posts (or probably donate and become a contributor) and you'll be elevated to our godly level :-p
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: simulacro on March 28, 2014, 01:39:41 PM
Maybe you should change the error message text to this

Quote
Ugh? Seems to be divided in to user classes, /me as a big important hero member can access it. Just write enough forum posts (or probably donate and become a contributor) and you'll be elevated to our godly level :-p

That would make it more user friendly  8)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 28, 2014, 01:47:11 PM
The first post says it very clearly.

I’m a user, what does this mean for me?
Tragic Lantern usage and discussion will no longer be accepted on this forum. Please continue discussion about the Magic Lantern ports in these threads: 50D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9852.0), 7D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9848.0), EOS-M (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741.0), 6D (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904.0), 600D.

Also, the announcement from Andy600 from the old thread (which should be visible to admins/mods only):
To all 50D Tragic Lantern users.

First, thank you all for contributing to this thread, one of the biggest on the forum. I'm sure, like me, you learned a few things here but apologies to new 50D users who might have found it difficult to find answers among the 180+ pages.

I am now locking this thread ahead of the changes being introduced to the forum. You can read what, why and how these changes affect things here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11080  (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11080)

I completely understand the reasons behind the coming changes but I want to add a personal thank you to 1% for maintaining this third-party mod, bringing features to the 50D and other cameras that may not have made it to the main Magic Lantern builds. As I have always pointed out, I only compile the code that 1% commits to his Bitbucket repository. The 'Tragic Lantern for the 50D' builds are derived from the code maintained by the main developers (a1ex, g3gg0 and others) but tweaked, pushed and pulled by 1% for the 50D.

I personally have never experienced any major issues with Tragic Lantern on the 50D (and originally on the 600D) but, as I point out when notifying you of new builds, Tragic Lantern does not have all the built-in safety fallbacks of Magic Lantern and there is always the potential for irreversible damage to be caused to your camera.

So, third party modifications are no longer being supported in the forum which means we can no longer discuss Tragic Lantern. I will continue to upload TL builds to my Bitbucket repository for the foreseeable future but I suggest 50D TL users begin the transition to using Magic Lantern nightlies http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/ (http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/) as the builds I upload will not be supported in any way. Questions about Tragic Lantern will be met with silence and may even result in a ban from the forum so you have been warned. If you choose to download and use a Tragic Lantern build you do so on the strict understanding that you cannot ask for support on this forum!

As suggested in the thread linked to in the first line of this post, it would be helpful to the developers for users to provide bug reports for Tragic Lantern here: https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-6d/issues?status=new&status=open (https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-6d/issues?status=new&status=open).

To report or request 'missing features' that may be in Tragic Lantern but not in the Nightly builds please use this topic: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10593.0 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10593.0)

To discuss Magic Lantern 50D builds please use this topic: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9852.0 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9852.0)

Thanks for your understanding!



Topic locked by Andy600
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jman on March 28, 2014, 03:54:58 PM
Read the first post of this thread or look here directly: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=58.0
tried this link...error.....i believe this was the 7d page...anyway to get it back up ?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: simulacro on March 28, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
With all respect: You are banning the TL efforts the same way Canon would with you.

The TL threads were part of the ML forum for some time and now they disappeared? Why not let them visible but closed?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Genscher on March 28, 2014, 05:21:23 PM
With all respect: You are banning the TL efforts the same way Canon would with you.

The TL threads were part of the ML forum for some time and now they disappeared? Why not let them visible but closed?

I totally agree.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 28, 2014, 05:34:56 PM
I totally agree.
I thought this all was open source?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 28, 2014, 05:40:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Tragic Lantern was a one way process.  The Magic Lantern developers were developing ML, and Tragic Lantern was taking these developments from ML, and developing features of it's own.
However, TL was not sharing these developments, back with ML.  Taking, taking, taking, and not giving anything back.

This is not how open source collaboration works.  ML is a development project first and foremost.  We, as users, are gifted these developments, by the developers.

During the discussion regarding these recent changes, suggestions where made, to have TL run on it's own website.  TL users are more then welcome to do as they see fit.
However, TL discussion cannot be supported on this forum.  If anyone bothers to read the OP, and consider the circumstances, beyond their own personal needs, the reasons why this decision has been made, should be abundantly clear.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Stedda on March 28, 2014, 05:40:44 PM
Quote
1%, the maintainer of Tragic Lantern, and other users, are free to fork and do whatever they wish with the project.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from starting up a new forum and carrying on. They don't want TL here being confused with Magic Lantern anymore since they deem it unsafe and don't want to provide support for things they don't agree with or problems other people created. That's their right and they've given many many chances for the situation to be turned around and nothings changed.

I support the decision and am personally glad it's finally come about. I fully trust Alex and g3gg0 and their checks and balances they require and if they stress things are unsafe then I stay away now there's no more worry about what came from where. Everything here is Magic Lantern, they way it should be.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 05:49:27 PM
Also, 1% is doing an amazing job lately by providing new features and suggestions to ML.

Sure, they may take a bit longer to merge but I'm quite confident that with the help of the community pointing out the differences between TL and ML this split will soon be a thing of the past.

I just want to restate that the only TL discussions not allowed on this forum are those regarding support matters of said fork. You are incouraged to discuss key differences or missing features all you want provided it's a constructive discussion and that it's done in the proper sections and threads.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: johnhenryrupe on March 28, 2014, 06:01:09 PM
Also, 1% is doing an amazing job lately by providing new features and suggestions to ML.

Sure, they may take a bit longer to merge but I'm quite confident that with the help of the community pointing out the differences between TL and ML this split will soon be a thing of the past.

I just want to restate that the only TL discussions not allowed on this forum are those regarding support matters of said fork. You are incouraged to discuss key differences or missing features all you want provided it's a constructive discussion and that it's done in the proper sections and threads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Tragic Lantern was a one way process.  The Magic Lantern developers were developing ML, and Tragic Lantern was taking these developments from ML, and developing features of it's own.
However, TL was not sharing these developments, back with ML.  Taking, taking, taking, and not giving anything back.

This is not how open source collaboration works.  ML is a development project first and foremost.  We, as users, are gifted these developments, by the developers.

During the discussion regarding these recent changes, suggestions where made, to have TL run on it's own website.  TL users are more then welcome to do as they see fit.
However, TL discussion cannot be supported on this forum.  If anyone bothers to read the OP, and consider the circumstances, beyond their own personal needs, the reasons why this decision has been made, should be abundantly clear.

Sooooo is Tragic Lantern taking taking taking, or providing new features?????
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 28, 2014, 06:06:57 PM
Sooooo is Tragic Lantern taking taking taking, or providing new features?????

Tragic Lantern was a one way process.  The Magic Lantern developers were developing ML, and Tragic Lantern was taking these developments from ML, and developing features of it's own.
However, TL was not sharing these developments, back with ML.  Taking, taking, taking, and not giving anything back.

Was (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/was).
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:08:32 PM
Maybe it's not clear enough. It used to be a one way process. TL using the ML code base then adding features and fixes on top but rarely pushing those fixes back. As the number of fixes increases it got harder to play "try to blindly port what TL has". Especially without a camera to test things on and with a objectively poor coding standards.

Right now things have changed a bit as 1% pushes things back to ML as soon as they are done. They will undergo code review as all the other contributions do and eventually land in ML too.
This is how things should be done. But there's still quite few fixes buried in TL that need porting and we can only figure those out if the community reports them.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:13:23 PM
well, if that is true, then let us talk with 1%. I am concerned that he told me he can now fix the EOSM to have a headphone output. Then all this stuff started here and we can't get what was wanted by many loyal forum users, like myself, who have asked for this and waited patiently.

Then the EOSM thread is waiting for you.
Keep in mind that if said changes involve patching assertions in canon code they won't likely make into ML any time soon.
Assertions are there for a reason and we don't mess with those as they could cause the camera to enter an invalid state and potentially brick.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 28, 2014, 06:14:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Tragic Lantern was a one way process.  The Magic Lantern developers were developing ML, and Tragic Lantern was taking these developments from ML, and developing features of it's own.
However, TL was not sharing these developments, back with ML.  Taking, taking, taking, and not giving anything back.

This is not how open source collaboration works.  ML is a development project first and foremost.  We, as users, are gifted these developments, by the developers.

During the discussion regarding these recent changes, suggestions where made, to have TL run on it's own website.  TL users are more then welcome to do as they see fit.
However, TL discussion cannot be supported on this forum.  If anyone bothers to read the OP, and consider the circumstances, beyond their own personal needs, the reasons why this decision has been made, should be abundantly clear.
I understood all of that. The big problem is constantly hearing one side say how terrible and unsafe T_ is and yet I keep saying I have used every new build everyday and I never had any problems. Yet no one from ML wants to discuss that openly and then maybe rethink their general public statements. We now have a poster (more than likely he is not an M, 6D or 7D user) claiming his loyal faith to ML and he will always believe anything ML tells him. That is sort of pathetic from my view. Maybe he missed my posts in the past about how it never hurt my camera in anyway. Probably no will will see any posts with all the T_ threads closed and hidden now. I am still wondering about this open source if old threads keep getting closed and then censored.

I am asking ML to show actual proof that T_ has caused anyone to have these unsafe things happen they claim. Because it sure has not happened here on my M camera withg every build since last July to date.

I am happy to see at least some people speaking out more on this and a little bit of discussion being made openly.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 28, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Then the EOSM thread is waiting for you.
Keep in mind that if said changes involve patching assertions in canon code they won't likely make into ML any time soon.
Assertions are there for a reason and we don't mess with those as they could cause the camera to enter an invalid state and potentially brick.
I have been to that eosm thread many times, as you know. I have supported and worked closely with anyone that has shown concern for the M. What happened to Jordan? He was suppose to fix all of this? what happened to that spreadsheet I volunteered to work on for the M and after I worked one day on it and then replied back to, what do I do now, nothing ever happened. I never got a follow up courtesy message saying thank you and why it is now dead. I forgot who it was now. Maybe nanomad.

Are you saying that 1% is now there in the eosm thread waiting to talk and work with us all? How come you guys gave headphone to the other cameras? we now have 1% willing to do it for the M. I am not the only one wanting this.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:22:09 PM
Do you want to see how a wrong patched assertion or movie mode remap or enabling sraw can cause a brick or a semi brick? We got professionals using their cameras for paid gigs and we can't afford even the possibly of such things happening.

We can discuss on the merit of hiding the TL sections, and I do agree that it may not be the best solution. But sacrificing stability for things that are known to have causes issues in the past is a big no no.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 28, 2014, 06:22:52 PM

Assertions are there for a reason and we don't mess with those as they could cause the camera to enter an invalid state and potentially brick.
ML warns people about using ML at their own risk and possibly bricking a camera. So what is the difference there? A double standard?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:24:32 PM
Btw yes it was me and yes I was impolite for not getting back to you guys. What that spreadsheet did was demonstrate the the ML eosm port was not really out of date and that it could be re enabled in the nightly builds.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:28:16 PM
ML warns people about using ML at their own risk and possibly bricking a camera. So what is the difference there? A double standard?

Call it however you want. I know some features caused bricks in the past. I use ML on my camera. I'm not taking responsibility for merging them then seeing my camera brick because of them and because I accidentally enabled it.

I won't promise to provide support either if you enable it then have troubles later on.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: gary2013 on March 28, 2014, 06:36:43 PM
And you just admitted the same warnings on ML. So, now what is the truthful way to make people not use T_? What about the guy I just mentioned who claims his loyal faith in whatever ML tells him? He based it on what ML said to scare him about being unsafe. You didn't comment on that.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 28, 2014, 06:48:59 PM
And you just admitted the same warnings on ML. So, now what is the truthful way to make people not use T_? What about the guy I just mentioned who claims his loyal faith in whatever ML tells him? He based it on what ML said to scare him about being unsafe. You didn't comment on that.
I did. There are features enabled in TL that caused bricks in the past like movie mode remap or assertion patching and that have been removed from ML since for that reason. These make TL more unsafe than vanilla ML as we have documented proof of bad behavior in the past
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: dmilligan on March 28, 2014, 06:59:52 PM
The big problem is constantly hearing one side say how terrible and unsafe T_ is and yet I keep saying I have used every new build everyday and I never had any problems.
"The big problem is constantly hearing one side say how terrible and unsafe [driving 150mph on the highway] is and yet I keep saying I [do that everyday on my way to work] and I never had any problems."
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 28, 2014, 07:23:26 PM
ML warns people about using ML at their own risk and possibly bricking a camera. So what is the difference there? A double standard?

There's a big difference between warning users to expect rough edges, and willfully keeping code that was proven to be dangerous.

Canon cameras have a design flaw in my opinion (and not only mine (http://www.reikanphotography.co.uk/blog/2011/11/Canon-EOS-Cameras-Recovering-from-Err-70)): certain settings (properties) can be saved in the non-volatile memory without validation. I already wrote about it in the FAQ. Once you manage to save a wrong setting, the camera will show ERR70 even if you boot without ML. Semi-brick.

That's why you should be really careful when changing these properties.

Fortunately, I know how to recover (http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Unbricking) from many of these semi-bricks, especially if I know what setting was changed. I've semi-bricked my cameras with stupid mistakes, spent countless hours trying to figure out how to unbrick them, and I've started to understand what are the situations where Canon code may fail and how to minimize the probability of these things happening with public builds. I wrote some low-level diagnostic tools (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=2296.0) and successfully unbricked quite a few cameras in the past.

Yes, people come to me or to g3gg0 to unbrick their cameras when something goes wrong.

I still have to learn how to flash back the firmware from a bricked camera (that's why I'm keeping the ROM backup code in ML builds - something that TL removed).

So yeah, keep ignoring my warnings (which I've learned the hard way by semi-bricking my own cameras) or challenging them with anecdotal evidence.

TL had a strong tendency of disabling the error message rather than fixing the actual cause of the problem. WAV recording is one of them: I wrote the memory backend to catch mistakes, it caught a severe bug in the wav recording code (writing to unallocated memory), and I have disabled the feature until a proper fix is found. What 1% did? He bypassed the memory backend, disabling the error message but keeping the bug.

Same for many other things that were my own code, I found them to be buggy (e.g. movie remap, sraw, dual iso preview) and disabled them. TL simply enabled them without actually fixing the issue I found.

Result: waaaa, Tragic Lantern has more features!!!

Not to mention that bitrate adjustments and beep code from TL were implemented by removing the safety checks (assertions) from Canon code. These checks are there for a reason, and disabling them is something I don't agree with.

I have an engineering background, and I'm trying hard to build software that would not fall down when the first woodpecker (http://www.podval.org/~sds/fragile.html) comes along.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Marsu42 on March 28, 2014, 08:47:14 PM
ML warns people about using ML at their own risk and possibly bricking a camera. So what is the difference there? A double standard?

Whatever the standard, I'd vote to err on the side of safety with ML for the simple reason that it is often regarded as a "hack" and not as original quality software.

As nightly is essentially the new rolling release instead of stable branches, it is very bad publicity to add any questionable code to the public binaries. If you want it, no one is hindering you to use TL (use 1%'s binaries or compile it yourself) or open a TL forum somewhere. I also use 1%'s beep code because it's more important to me than the occasional crash. But this is not about you, me, 1% or alex, but about the general consistency and maintainability of the whole project.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Danson Delta-40 on March 28, 2014, 11:35:36 PM
I'd just like to say that if it weren't for 1% I wouldn't have done half the videos I have made in the past 5 months. I know that porting things to all these different cameras can take a lot, but the time it took to get back to the 7D, a huuuuuuugely popular camera, was kind of annoying. I know you are all working for free and whatnot, and I am using this for free, but the 7D was just too popular for it to go unmaintained. Oh well, thanks for all you did 1%!
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 29, 2014, 12:27:14 AM
7D went unmaintained because 1% did not contribute his work to ML back then.

Same for 6D and EOSM.

Back then, I've marked these ports as "unmaintained" to raise awareness about what needs to be done (but didn't really work). I've even refused to commit code for two months in order to give time for TL to merge their work back to ML. It did not happen, but it did bring a huge increase in code contributions to ML from other users (which was a very good thing). Still, there was no intention from 1% to contribute his code to ML.

This decision was made to avoid these problems in the future, and to make sure all the development efforts will end up in the Magic Lantern repository, not in private forks, so everybody can benefit from them (not just a small group of people).

Recently, 1% did submit some of his developments to ML, and one of them - the 6D GPS fix - was merged today. This was encouraging and we hope this process will continue.

I invite everybody to study the Magic Lantern commit history (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits) (here's a video version (http://vimeo.com/66856998)), do the same for Tragic Lantern (https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-6d/commits/all), and try to do an unbiased evaluation of the contributions from all the parties involved. Feel free to dissect the code differences and review them. Seriously.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: feureau on March 29, 2014, 12:18:12 PM
7D went unmaintained because 1% did not contribute his work to ML back then.

I think specifically, the 7D ML went unmaintained. Well, we used to have some devs working on it.

It was g3gg0's brilliant breakthrough that first got ML running on the 7D, but the devs stop when it seems like g3gg0 was offended by what some users complained about.

At the time the 7D firmware needed to be signed, and the only way regular users can get the .fir was for the devs to sign them. There were new developments posted on the forum for months but not a single .fir update was posted. Some people felt that the devs kept new developments for themselves and wouldn't share with the community, complained about it and it seems this caused g3gg0 dropped out of the 7D forum.

After a long hiatus, someone figured out how to patch the 7D and run an auto loading ML. Not long after that, the community found out that 1% was hacking away the 6D and the EOS-M then someone asked him to take over the 7D development. At the time 1% didn't have a 7D, but said if they could get him one for testing, he'd work on the 7D for TL.

The community rallied and got him a donated 7D including raising money for shipping.

With the 7D in 1%'s hand, the port went into full development. We even managed to get MLV running. Had it not been for the community's effort, the 7D ML would still be stuck at best with high-bitrate mp4. Of which, the codes has been disabled in ML because it's deemed too risky. But it runs just fine in TL.

With nobody working on the 7D ML, the community found someone willing to fork it and run with it. This is just the way natural selection work with open source software.

In hindsight it might be nice for some of the developments to get pulled back to ML, but given the way TL changes a lot of things that might break the camera, maybe pulling it back to ML wouldn't be such a good idea given ML's propensity to take less risk.

At any rate, I'm really grateful for TL and what 1% has done for the 7D. Just as much as I'm grateful for everyone who has worked on ML. Especially g3gg0.

This breaking up of the two branch is breaking my heart.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: simulacro on March 29, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
I think specifically, the 7D ML went unmaintained. Well, we used to have some devs working on it.

It was g3gg0's brilliant breakthrough that first got ML running on the 7D, but the devs stop when it seems like g3gg0 was offended by what some users complained about.

At the time the 7D firmware needed to be signed, and the only way regular users can get the .fir was for the devs to sign them. There were new developments posted on the forum for months but not a single .fir update was posted. Some people felt that the devs kept new developments for themselves and wouldn't share with the community, complained about it and it seems this caused g3gg0 dropped out of the 7D forum.

After a long hiatus, someone figured out how to patch the 7D and run an auto loading ML. Not long after that, the community found out that 1% was hacking away the 6D and the EOS-M then someone asked him to take over the 7D development. At the time 1% didn't have a 7D, but said if they could get him one for testing, he'd work on the 7D for TL.

The community rallied and got him a donated 7D including raising money for shipping.

With the 7D in 1%'s hand, the port went into full development. We even managed to get MLV running. Had it not been for the community's effort, the 7D ML would still be stuck at best with high-bitrate mp4. Of which, the codes has been disabled in ML because it's deemed too risky. But it runs just fine in TL.

With nobody working on the 7D ML, the community found someone willing to fork it and run with it. This is just the way natural selection work with open source software.

In hindsight it might be nice for some of the developments to get pulled back to ML, but given the way TL changes a lot of things that might break the camera, maybe pulling it back to ML wouldn't be such a good idea given ML's propensity to take less risk.

At any rate, I'm really grateful for TL and what 1% has done for the 7D. Just as much as I'm grateful for everyone who has worked on ML. Especially g3gg0.

This breaking up of the two branch is breaking my heart.

If what you say is true, then why some people say that 1% is only taking and taking? His contributions have been so beneficial for 7d owners for example... As far as I know from what i read here. 1% was using A1ex work, but not only for his credit, but for the 7d community. I understand what A1ex said about taking TL to a risky edge, but maybe losing 1% contributions could be worse to the community. I don't know what's 1% reaction to be banned from ML, but it would be better if you bring back the TL threads. I think everyone there knew the risks, no one complained. As long as the risks of TL are well known by the users, there shouldn't be any kind of complaints

(...I remember once, I erased in my computer all the files from the CF card, including the DCIM folder. When I put the card in the camera, it did'nt respond. I was scared as hell and I thought "that's it, i bricked my camera". I knew the risks of playing with something I didn't know enough and accepted i shouldn't complain to anyone in ML or TL for my mistake. Later, i put the card again in the computer and brought back the files from the trash can to the CF card. Everything OK. What I'm trying to say, if everyone is aware of the drawbacks of using TL, there is no need of erasing all their work)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on March 29, 2014, 05:49:17 PM
1% is still contributing to the project. Technically speaking he's contributing more now than he was before. It may not look like that from a user perspective but he is.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on March 29, 2014, 06:00:47 PM
I don't know what's 1% reaction to be banned from ML,

1% has not been banned.

This decision is based solely on the forking of Magic Lantern, and ensuring that these forks do not interfere with the core values set forth by the Magic Lantern development team.  1%, the maintainer of Tragic Lantern, and other users, are free to fork and do whatever they wish with the project.  This decision should not be considered as a personal attack towards 1%, or other users, who maintain their forks in a manner that is suitable for themselves.  We respect the development by all members, including development that moves away from the direction of Magic Lantern.

However, in the end, only the main repository (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/overview) can be called Magic Lantern and be supported on this website for all of the reasons listed within.


but it would be better if you bring back the TL threads. I think everyone there knew the risks, no one complained. As long as the risks of TL are well known by the users, there shouldn't be any kind of complaints

We feel that the current situation only serves to create confusion among users, split the community, and duplicate development efforts. This makes merging harder than rewriting these features and fixes from scratch, and clutters the forum with duplicate requests, issues and development discussion.

Therefore, we have decided to drop any form of official support for these kind of forks.

Magic Lantern is a development project, first and foremost*.  This development project was being hindered by Tragic Lantern.

We understand that some users may feel inconvenienced by the decision.  There was discussion regarding this decision, for around 4 months (or more), before this announcement was made public.  1% was part of this discussion.
It is hoped (and expected), that in the long run, everyone, including users, will benefit from this decision.  Look past the short term inconvenience.

Again, I encourage everyone, to read the OP, and consider the circumstances, as a whole.  Not simply on a personal level.

I created a thread here (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10593.0), for the express purpose of allowing users to discuss which features are missing from Magic Lantern, to bring the Magic Lantern ports into line with current user expectations, and so far, there has only been 1 response.  Seems everyone is more interested in the politics  :(


*  This development project has given us what we all know and love.  Magic Lantern.  It is why we are all here.  Without this development project, there would be no discussion, no forums, no cool features, nothing.

As users, we should respect the decisions of the development team.  We should respect that they make decisions in the best interest of the development project.  And as such, we the users benefit greatly, from the advancement of this project.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: lionelp on March 29, 2014, 06:58:58 PM
1% has not been banned.

1% is still contributing to the project. Technically speaking he's contributing more now than he was before. It may not look like that from a user perspective but he is.




Thank you Audionut and nanomad for clarifying this.
Even though it hurt a little from my point of view; a unified group is certainly capable of excellent future development than  as opposed to a group that is separated and not unified.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: OSCA LEE on March 30, 2014, 04:46:40 PM
I understood all of that. The big problem is constantly hearing one side say how terrible and unsafe T_ is and yet I keep saying I have used every new build everyday and I never had any problems. Yet no one from ML wants to discuss that openly and then maybe rethink their general public statements. We now have a poster (more than likely he is not an M, 6D or 7D user) claiming his loyal faith to ML and he will always believe anything ML tells him. That is sort of pathetic from my view. Maybe he missed my posts in the past about how it never hurt my camera in anyway. Probably no will will see any posts with all the T_ threads closed and hidden now. I am still wondering about this open source if old threads keep getting closed and then censored.

I am asking ML to show actual proof that T_ has caused anyone to have these unsafe things happen they claim. Because it sure has not happened here on my M camera withg every build since last July to date.

I am happy to see at least some people speaking out more on this and a little bit of discussion being made openly.

Co sign 100%
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Critical Point on March 30, 2014, 05:13:27 PM
Well, from what I can see, things get very slowly ported into ML, if at all. I my self am using TL because it gives me control over the H.264 bitrate and GOP. This is an amazing feature, something that really matters, but will this get ported into ML ? Probably not. And why ? Only God knows why not. As long as you don't port into ML things that really are important, you can't blame 1% for offering those features in his TL.

I think that both ML and TL should be accepted on this site, because obviously we can't get all the goodies in one place only. It would be great to see everything only in ML, but since it can't be done, because of this, I think TL should be kept.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: feureau on March 30, 2014, 06:16:44 PM
Well, from what I can see, things get very slowly ported into ML, if at all. I my self am using TL because it gives me control over the H.264 bitrate and GOP. This is an amazing feature, something that really matters, but will this get ported into ML ? Probably not. And why ? Only God knows why not. As long as you don't port into ML things that really are important, you can't blame 1% for offering those features in his TL.

The bitrate hack originally came from ML. It was later removed from ML because of bad codes. I didn't know what this meant because there weren't much explanation then, but the damn thing worked just fine as long as you got a good GOP and flush setting with sufficiently fast cards. After a long time of not knowing why, best explanation we have so far is this:

TL had a strong tendency of disabling the error message rather than fixing the actual cause of the problem. WAV recording is one of them: I wrote the memory backend to catch mistakes, it caught a severe bug in the wav recording code (writing to unallocated memory), and I have disabled the feature until a proper fix is found. What 1% did? He bypassed the memory backend, disabling the error message but keeping the bug.

Same for many other things that were my own code, I found them to be buggy (e.g. movie remap, sraw, dual iso preview) and disabled them. TL simply enabled them without actually fixing the issue I found.

Result: waaaa, Tragic Lantern has more features!!!

Not to mention that bitrate adjustments and beep code from TL were implemented by removing the safety checks (assertions) from Canon code. These checks are there for a reason, and disabling them is something I don't agree with.

I was glad TL put this back so at least I can use it. The only annoying part was the auto-disabling canon audio every time you turn it on. This is insanely annoying behavior to hard code into since you have to keep turning it on every time you want to record audio, and pray you don't forget to do it. It is bad form to have the software automagically change a setting contrary to the way the user set it up to.

Plus it's interesting solution to remove a feature entirely after leaving it in for a long time (IIRC more than a year), instead of coding in the safety checks and blaming the whole thing on TL...
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Critical Point on March 30, 2014, 09:43:48 PM
Well, it doesn't matter, many persons use TL because the GOP & bitrate features work, and recording the audio with an external device is a common practice, it's not such a big deal to most, because they do it anyway, with or without TL, me included. After having used TL for over a year now, it didn't chewed up my camera, and works just fine.

It is called Tragic Lantern for a good reason, and I think 1% explained very clearly that the code is not 100% good, ok, or tested, but there are some of us that accept TL the way it is, only to gain certain features that in ML we can't get. When those features will get ported to ML, I will gladly reinstall ML on my camera, but until that day comes, I'm stuck with TL because I can't give up those controls over the bitrate and GOP.

Give us an alternative in ML and we'll gladly give up TL, but unfortunately this is not happening, you guys want us to give up TL and go back to nothing. I'm sure that before TL was banned, somebody could have said: "before banning TL, let's not rob this people of some good features that they depend on, and lets put them in ML, then we'll ban TL. Lets make first ML be at the level of TL features ways, then we'll close TL."

Make an ML 2.4 with the bitrate and GOP controls included (without sound if it can't be done otherwise), but put those features in ML, they are very important to many, because those two damn features are the reason why many people use TL and not ML.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on March 30, 2014, 10:16:19 PM
Quote from: feureau
Had it not been for the community's effort, the 7D ML would still be stuck at best with high-bitrate mp4.
Say (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/c2a01891156e) what? (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3974.msg63411#msg63411)

Well, from what I can see, things get very slowly ported into ML, if at all.
If nobody submits pull request for these features, they don't get ported. We have pulled blindly a lot of changes, FYI, and we do not want to do blind porting any more.

https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all?search=1%25+Percent+tragic

Quote from: Critical Point
but will this get ported into ML ? Probably not. And why ? Only God knows why not. As long as you don't port into ML things that really are important, you can't blame 1% for offering those features in his TL.

1% can share his bitrate code as a module that can run on top of normal ML

Quote from: feureau
The bitrate hack originally came from ML.

The one with patched asserts did not.
https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern-6d/history-node/d043040e5de2/src/bitrate-6d.c?page=5
https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/history-node/fd411184b6c4/src/video_hacks.c?at=unified

Any more questions?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Critical Point on March 30, 2014, 10:36:08 PM
If there is the possibility of running ML + the bitrate & GOP features as an module...that would be lovely. But, until that day comes, I'm stuck with TL.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: engardeknave on March 30, 2014, 11:06:32 PM
Quote
There's a big difference between warning users to expect rough edges, and willfully keeping code that was proven to be dangerous.

..

I have an engineering background, and I'm trying hard to build software that would not fall down when the first woodpecker comes along.

I feel like I should voice my deep appreciation for this development philosophy. I absolutely wouldn't be able to use ML otherwise. It's the difference between losing a few features, and losing all of them.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: dmilligan on March 30, 2014, 11:11:35 PM
After having used TL for over a year now, it didn't chewed up my camera, and works just fine.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Quote
Give us an alternative in ML and we'll gladly give up TL, but unfortunately this is not happening, you guys want us to give up TL and go back to nothing.
This is a website for Magic Lantern. You have every right to continue using TL, 1% has every right to continue developing it. Just not here on this site. It is absurd for you to insist that ML developers provide support for a competing fork that does dangerous things that they disagree with. If you feel so strongly about TL, then feel free to make your own website and forum, provide support and downloads, you have every right to do so and nobody is going to stop you, but stop making ridiculous demands of the ML developers, you are only proving them right in their decision.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: idealsceneprod on March 31, 2014, 03:17:53 PM
What about existing threads and posts?
Any remaining threads about Tragic Lantern will be moved to this section (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=58.0). Next week they will be locked out and put in read-only mode

I keep getting an error when I try to access this section. Has the move not been completed yet? Or am I experiencing another issue. Error message says:

"An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: dmilligan on March 31, 2014, 04:41:06 PM
"An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: idealsceneprod on March 31, 2014, 09:29:44 PM
Roger that!
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: flavediller on April 02, 2014, 05:55:52 AM
Everyone on this site who is an end-user and not a coder needs to back up and think clearly about what is going on. A group of people (ML) are providing a service that we DON'T pay for. They are taking extra time to make sure the service is safe and won't ruin our cameras. They also invented the system and technique and whole concept of these Canon "hacks" to begin with. Another group/person works somewhat independently...doesn't follow the rules, consistently puts cameras at risk according to the polices and procedures dictated by the original group, and you blame the original group for pushing out the other party? 1 they have every reason to do this and 2 they have every right to do this. Not to mention the fact that they aren't excluding and banning the creator of TL from the site or punishing him/her.

Almost every complaint I see is from someone who is being unbelievably selfish. You are complaining because you WANT more. Because you WANT TL and ML for no other reason than that you want your end-user experience to be served. You are taking no consideration for the fact that this is all free. Show some compassion, concern, and understanding for these coders. They are trying to protect their reputation, their credibility and your own personal end-user cameras! Can you blame a person for taking the time to make sure a product is safe and practical just because another person is plunging forward recklessly? 

If you created a product...and then this other guy started working with you but then started going off on their own with your idea and started taking big risks with it....what do you think YOU'D do?

Support TL all you want. I personally support TL and will continue to do so. I love what TL has done....but I don't blame or discredit ML for the decision they have made. I personally do not have any ability to conceive whether or not TL is risky or making bad decisions, but my opinion has absolutely no bearing here. ML gets to make that decision and they have made it. It is perfectly reasonable. Maybe people should try working WITHIN the system for the greater good instead of complaining because they aren't getting everything they want for free on a silver platter.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: feureau on April 02, 2014, 11:12:19 AM
Say (https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/c2a01891156e) what? (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3974.msg63411#msg63411)

I'm grateful for you to find those stubs. Some people took it and worked on it to get raw recording running. However, it took the community to deliver a 7D to 1% to finally get .raw and .mlv to run on it. Without the community effort, the 7D users will only have the high-bitrate .fir.

Now, I don't mean that there's no work done on the backend of ML. It's just that without devs working on the 7D anymore, the general populace who couldn't compile ML if their lives depended on it, wouldn't have access to the developments. Especially unported modules and such.

I keep getting an error when I try to access this section. Has the move not been completed yet? Or am I experiencing another issue. Error message says:

"An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

It loads fine with me. Although everything's been locked, so there's that.

If you created a product...and then this other guy started working with you but then started going off on their own with your idea and started taking big risks with it....what do you think YOU'D do?

I would chill, and see what the other guy is doing in terms of what they're changing and taking that and adding it back to what I have as I see fit, and work with the guy to improve what he's doing. Since this is what Open Source software is.

Don't forget, ML is GPL.

At any rate, now that the TL section has been closed off, I recommend we cease this back and forth as it is counterproductive, and we better focus on further bettering the firmware and the community. Apologies if any of what I said in this thread hurts anyone's feelings. They are merely sincere feedback from an avid fan.

Great work, everyone, and thanks for all your efforts.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ffinv on April 02, 2014, 04:17:20 PM
I am also unable to load the section  :( Getting the same error. All that community knowledge/contribution, testing data, user & developer insights, just gone? No hope of getting it back, even in locked form?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Flexinoodle on April 04, 2014, 08:27:47 AM
So am i right in thinking that all the mods for the 600d like GOP and slice and such, are never going to be in ML because they have been refused by the ML devs or where never submitted ?
Not trying to be a troll at all here, just wondering if i should be thinking about going back to ML when it doesn't currently have these mods.

On a sidenote, getting rid of all the threads is very poor behaviour it has to be said, read only would have been great (As stated) but removing them like you have, just seem a little childish, lot of lost valuable data (Was relevant to ML too)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on April 04, 2014, 08:31:06 AM
It depends on how they are done. If they simply override in memory values I don't see why they shouldn't make into ML.
If they require assertion patching they won't.
I've never seen the code so I can't say. A pull request to review it would be the best course of action.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Flexinoodle on April 04, 2014, 08:35:05 AM
Sorry, i don't even know what a pull request is, i use the software to get better work out of my 600d, beyond that i don't really know anything and have no bones in this at all (Mad respect for everybody involved in any of this)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Flexinoodle on April 04, 2014, 08:37:19 AM
If i was to set up a forum for the other package, would there be any chance i could get access to all the now non accessable posts ?
I learnt to use most of ML from the 600d posts, they where great font of information from users and such.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on April 04, 2014, 08:40:06 AM
Sure.
I'll be making The tragic Lantern Section read only anyway as there's valuable information that can be referenced around when comparing missing features.

Edit: done, can you confirm it works properly now?
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Flexinoodle on April 04, 2014, 08:48:09 AM
Oh that's excellent, thanks a lot :)
All my links to 600d threads seem to be working perfectly.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: nanomad on April 04, 2014, 09:13:17 AM
May I ask what TL features are missing from ML for the 600D? Except for nitrate control
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Flexinoodle on April 04, 2014, 05:21:45 PM
I think it is mainly the GOP and slice stuff, but if i remember right (Again not a developer and could be wrong here) i think that t here are some audio options that are not available in ML (The ability to run headphones and use the display)
Again i may be wrong about the audio stuff.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ffinv on April 07, 2014, 10:32:40 PM
I too am able to see the threads now after logging in, esp. the 6D/install threads! Thank you very much!!  :)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: CF on April 18, 2014, 11:24:53 PM
Being a programmer (no ML or Canon) of conscience - I can certainly tell when someone else harness that same property.
I have been using A1EX's nightly builds a long time and it is clear that he is a HIGHLY skilled and conscious programmer.

I feel completely safe with him sitting behind the steering wheel !

Bypassing safety to rid errors is NOT safe and should (IMO) not be available for DL without a CLEAR statement of such.

The ML-Project is about the most beautiful thing which has happened to the CPU world. Skilled technicians supplying free and HIGHLY useful code... This is NOT happening very often.


Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jerrykil on April 29, 2014, 12:07:05 AM
I have a couple questions for you guys. What does someone starting out need to know about backporting changes to the main codebase?

Also, if a fork decides to start their own forum, are we allowed to inform others on these forums?

Thanks for all the hard work. I hope that I can or the TL user community can help 1% as well as the ML community by backporting bug fixes in a way that is acceptable to the ML codebase and developers.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on April 29, 2014, 04:53:21 AM
What does someone starting out need to know about backporting changes to the main codebase?

Open source is all about collaboration.

With that in mind, you should think about backporting your own code, whenever you believe it will contribute to the original project.


Also, if a fork decides to start their own forum, are we allowed to inform others on these forums?

As long as it doesn't become spam.  :)


I can assure you, it is significantly easier to backport fixes, then to create an entirely new support structure (forums etc).
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ebulb on May 06, 2014, 01:25:38 PM
i have read through this post and just wanted to say i fully support the ML philosophy with development as stated through this thread.. I can understand how a fork could seem appealing short term as it looks like more features are available but when you are in the business of reverse engineering or hacking something some degree of consensus is important to ensure the right decisions are made and things remains safe.  thank you for your great work.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: ed.jenner on May 15, 2014, 05:31:11 AM
i have read through this post and just wanted to say i fully support the ML philosophy with development as stated through this thread.. I can understand how a fork could seem appealing short term as it looks like more features are available but when you are in the business of reverse engineering or hacking something some degree of consensus is important to ensure the right decisions are made and things remains safe.  thank you for your great work.

Being a programmer (no ML or Canon) of conscience - I can certainly tell when someone else harness that same property.
I have been using A1EX's nightly builds a long time and it is clear that he is a HIGHLY skilled and conscious programmer.

That just about summed up my feelings on the matter.
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Levinson on May 24, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
For a non profit project, I'm amazed at the devotion put into Magic Lantern by all the developers for all the camera models and branches. I don't post often but I enjoy reading the forum every day - and as confusing as it all may seem at first to the newcomer, it's really a well run machine. Thank you for all your efforts and time, and please let it continue :)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: barepixels on June 27, 2014, 06:32:20 PM
united we stand divided we fall
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jerrykil on August 09, 2014, 01:23:27 AM
Audionut,

So I have a small consts.h fix, how would I go about "back porting" that? (A link would suffice)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: Audionut on August 09, 2014, 02:41:16 AM
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7940.0
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: LuisGarcia on August 26, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
I need some help with installing ML on my 6D, I have the Firmware 1.1.4, and there'snt a ML nightlybuild for it, so my question is can I re-instal the lastest 1.1.2 and the load the 1.1.3?, or there's no way to get back the firmware on my 6D, I haven't work with ML and I'll like to try it so please help me with this issue. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: jimmyD30 on August 26, 2014, 10:30:48 PM
Wrong thread, but look here:

Title: Re: About forking Magic Lantern and the support that can be provided on this forum
Post by: a1ex on August 26, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
Wrong tutorial too.

www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3904