Why forks don't merge their changes with legacy liquidbounce and dont helping in developement?
-
@cxtspnzwzd The code of LB was pretty messy when I look back and I have been therefore cleaning it up this year which greatly improved it in my opinion. However, all of these forks have the old LB as their base with some much worse skidded code applied to them. It wouldn't be so easy to just copy and paste because of merge conflicts, different naming schemes and coding conventions.
-
@CzechHek I understand for now reason for merging. But why they don't help or work in developement.
-
@cxtspnzwzd It's not that easy to add something into original LB because of its required coding standards, major changes wouldn't also get approved because there isn't any active development on the legacy branch. Many pull request take long to accept or jut get rejected.
-
I have no idea. People seem to not like the idea of commiting their bypasses to LiquidBounce itself.
-
When it comes to Legacy, I am very open to not taking coding standards that seriously. I would be very happy if people would commit their bypasses to Legacy or even Nextgen. I also wrote a post about this some time ago: https://forums.ccbluex.net/topic/7570/do-not-be-afraid-to-contribute
-
Especially when I see people actively contributing to forks or other clients, I wonder what we did wrong.
-
@kawaiinekololis I think that LB forks are becoming more known than LiquidBounce itself due to a snowball effect, being:
- Minecraft Cheating dying in general
- People making a ton of videos about LiquidBounce forks
- People starting to forget about LiquidBounce itself
- Some unique fork bypasses not being added to LiquidBounce, due to some people knowing what LiquidBounce+ Reborn is, but not knowing what LiquidBounce is, therefore not being able to contribute
- Because of people not being able to contribute because they don't even know LiquidBounce exists, the remaining people switch to forks because they have more bypasses
Only a few people such as @CzechHek, @mems, and I, are actually contributing to LiquidBounce, and making it better; but remember, YOU, dear viewer of this post, can make a difference, you just have to learn a tiny bit of coding, and step by step, you'll be way better off.
-
@Gabriel I tend to agree with the snowball effect. The problem is that Liquidbounce doesn't have any built in bypasses they all have to be made yourself. This became worse with when scripts started to die off. To bring some new players back the Legacy UI needs to be redone it's looking hella dated at this point and is really a turn off compared to some of the forks. I'd be happy to help but I can't code so and Gpt4 still isn't at a usable state.
-
@Razzy LiquidBounce actually doesn't look dated; if you look at FDPClient, it's in a much worse state, + LiquidBounce+ Reborn has a ton of issues, including 1k+ errors a minute (literally), and nearly reducing the FPS to zero. Oh, and also; you can still make configs, that can help even more, due to the already existing potential in LiquidBounce.
-
@Gabriel Yeah, the UI doesn't look dated but it doesn't look "modern" to say the least.
Also on the config side there's just a few things missing which would be a great help, for example Vulcan speed which could be easily taken from LB+R or fdp. I also have no alts to use anymore to make configs and with thealtening being dead and easymc support being removed there's not much I can do. -
-
@Gabriel I am agree with snowball effect. In addition I can say I caught myself on what I am more interesting for any project fork, instead original project. Maybe it is one of reason, why forks 'more active' than original liquidbounce.
-
@cxtspnzwzd People also think that LiquidBounce is discontinued, which is totally false.
-
I don't expect people not to think that the client is discontinued when b73 took almost 2 years to release because of a severe screw-up. With that being said there are some who don't even know that b73 got updated, they probably don't even know the client's version is 10 numbers ahead lol
-
C cxtspnzwzd marked this topic as a question on
-
After all those recently rejected pull requests with "skidded" code, I came to the conclusion that this is the main cause of inactivity when compared with other forks.
Perhaps such code should be tolerated, if it gets modified to work within LB or even if it works better than original?
-
I would happily merge any pull request under these rules:
A person actually came up with this bypass
The code is ORIGINALLY from a LiquidBounce fork and then it may have been used by paid clients / clients that don't share the same license as LiquidBounce.And as we speak, this lad uploaded a new pull request:
https://github.com/CCBlueX/LiquidBounce/pull/1339/files
How can I now know if this is really not stolen and he actually came up with this? Secondly and no disrespect towards him, but it has been repeatedly shown he doesn't really know how to code or have some sort of idea how to put something in a module and make it work. By the bad indentation I can tell he simply pasted the code from some client that as of now I don't know if it's from a LiquidBounce fork.
closed added new crit mode. #1339
-
@mems How would you feel about me trying to merge something like this?
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1JL411C7dh/?spm_id_from=333.788.recommend_more_video.0
(I'm not Chinese It's just the only video if it I could find.)It's from KevinClient Reborn and im 99% sure no other client has this that I've found so far. Pretty sure I could make some improvements to it aswell due to the glide aspect of it being pretty inefficient.
-
Just make sure it's under the second rule I stated:
The code is ORIGINALLY from a LiquidBounce fork and then it may have been used by paid clients / clients that don't share the same license as LiquidBounce.
If the guy who made it stole it from a non-LiquidBounce fork, then sorry but no. If not, then feel free to make one.
