Minetest Forums

Very good addition, the missing link for mod devs I’d even argue. IIRC Gitea and Gogs should automatically be supported because of their API compatibility with Github.

texmex wrote:IIRC Gitea and Gogs should automatically be supported because of their API compatibility with Github.

ooh, this is good. I'll have to check this and then update the documentation

Sick! one of the best new features IMO

There is a bug in the markdown editor where you cannot insert single newlines.

As a result, it's impossible to add text directly below other text, except as a new paragraph (or otherwise to resort to lists). I've tested with other markdown editors online, and they do not exhibit this limitation.

sorcerykid wrote:There is a bug in the markdown editor where you cannot insert single newlines.

As a result, it's impossible to add text directly below other text, except as a new paragraph (or otherwise to resort to lists). I've tested with other markdown editors online, and they do not exhibit this limitation.

This is not a bug but standard behaviour; Markdown ignores single newlines. To make a new paragraph, two new lines are used - as you know. To make a new line (ie: br), you end a line with two spaces

https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#p

sorcerykid wrote:There is a bug in the markdown editor where you cannot insert single newlines.

Append two spaces after your first line. It’s in the markdown standard.

https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#p

Thanks for the heads up.

It’s in the markdown standard.

Strange, the three leading markdown editors online (StackEdit, Dillinger, and Editor.md) all accept ordinary line-breaks. So it's not a standard, only a recommendation by the inventor whose philosophy is clearly not enforced.

Markdown is intentionally informally specified and not standardised. This results in discrepencies depending on the implementation you use

rubenwardy wrote:Markdown is intentionally informally specified and not standardised. This results in discrepencies depending on the implementation you use

I’d always go with the original description by Gruber/Swartz that was (accidentally) pointed out twice. To me this definition should be seen as de-facto standard and everything else is just extensions. It was unambiguously stated that "When you do want to insert a <br /> break tag using Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then type return.".

If editors allow single linebreaks without explicitly marking it with two spaces then it is a change/addition of Markdown as intended and should not be seen as “standard”.

But I’m biased since I once wrote a fully compatible markdown parser from scratch as a project. :)

Afaik that is indeed intended behaviour but markdown is quite flexible and should be implemented however the user sees fit.

I recall that linking to the forum topics of another mod was not desired/allowed in ContentDB descriptions, but I can't find that comment or any related guidance beyond "no promotions, advertisements, or asking for donations". I assumed it was because forum links were inappropriate for the Minetest in-game Content browser, but that doesn't display the long descriptions.

What's the guidance for links in the long description? Am I misremembering?

There's no rule against it, however, it should probably be avoided in preference of linking to the ContentDB page. This is because keeping the user inside ContentDB is good for UX, and they can find the forum from the listing anyway

Obviously, you may find exceptions to this - for example, if you want users to read or comment on the forum topic

how can i change the e-mail-address for the user, there is currently a error message for CDB?

Thanks, and yeah - I only feel the need to link to forum topics if it has no contentDB page to link to.

I've split the conversation about non-free licenses on ContentDB into a new topic: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24785

ContentDB now supports reviews, and maintainers!

Head to your favourite (or most hated) content and review it. The better reviews a package receives, the higher it'll appear in the content list.

Maintainers are users that are given write access to a package. Depending on their rank, they will be able to edit the package, create releases and screenshots, and read private threads. Maintainers cannot add or remove other maintainers, but can remove themselves.

https://content.minetest.net/

Are authors notified when there is a new review of their content?

Yes. You will also receive a notification if a review is updated

Side-note: the reviews' effect on "top packages" is document here https://content.minetest.net/help/top_packages/
In the future, it'll be possible for other users to vote a review as "helpful" or "unhelpful", which will affect how much it affects the package's score.

Ah, great, thanks. I am a bit skeptical, but we’ll see :)

A completely other question. I noticed images in descriptions are not shown for all of my mods:



The images are available (rightclick -> view image, etc.) and embedding images on other pages is not disabled (the images are shown in the mod’s forum posts).

The Content Security Policy forbids any resources (including images) that are not from minetest.net or other whitelisted sources, for security reasons. I can make a note to review this though, and either allow any source for images or add specific sources for images

Maybe allow all sources that are supported Git hosters, too?

Very productive day today! I went through and fixed the majority of the bugs on the issue tracker. I also added quite a few features (and so more bugs)

New features

• Add ability for the reviewer to delete reviews. Moderators and the content owner cannot delete reviews
• Cleaned up review appearance on homepage
• Add the ability to edit comments
• Add the ability for moderators to lock threads and delete comments
• Notifications redesign, add badge to notifications
• Add audit log
• Add badge to notification icon
• Add ability for moderators to change a user's linked accounts (ie: github/forums)
• Add /reviews/ to list all reviews
• Thread list redesign
• Add reviews to user profile
• Add more obvious edit buttons for reviews

Bug fixes

• Fix issues with review recommend yes/no widget
• Fix generation of forum profile URLs
• Add more sort options to package API, correct documentation
• Use middleware to clear notifications
• Fix screenshot approval checkbox always being unchecked
• Fix pagination losing query arguments
• Fix tag selector losing all tags on remove
• Fix tags being lost on Edit Package
• Hide reviews from package thread list

Hooray, it has version-checking in-game, and supported version notes on the website!

ContentDB entries on behalf of others...

I asked Napiophelios if there was "any chance of putting beautiful mods like lapis onto ContentDB?", and they said:

I am not really concerned if my stuff gets put on ConentDB,
I make stuff mainly for personal use.

I'd add it myself, except it's not my mod. It's not abandoned either, though adopting abandoned mods presents a similar question.

Is it simpler to just leave them out of ContentDB?

And - don't do anything about this yet - similarly the Nether mod was created by pilzadams who I'm not sure is around any more, so the contentdb package is the minetest-mods git head from 2018. Should we request [to rubenwardy] new release pulls from git?

With the maintainer system, people who aren't the author can edit packages. So I can create the package and let you edit. ContentDB also operates on the premise that the author doesn't need to add mods, anyway