The open source repository we maintain for our server's codebase is governed under the AGPL3 license, available here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
All content must be available to be ported to this license, and therefore must be either a compatible license already, or, your own creation that you license under AGPL3 by submitting it to our codebase.
There are several other policies that we have created to ensure that the repository is as functional as possible, as a source for the source code itself, reporting bugs and other issues, and making contributions.
Follow the License
All contributions must either be licensed under an AGPL3 compatible license, or created by you and dedicated to the codebase under the AGPL3 license. Information about what licenses are compatible can be found here:
License compatibility is a fairly complex legal issue, but most other Space Station 13 codebases are also AGPL3, and porting features from them can be done without issue.
For reference, because it is a common license, Creative Commons 4.0 BY-SA is the only CC license 'flavor' officially compatible with AGPL 3.0. CC 4.0 just 'BY' and just 'SA' are also both compatible. All CC licenses that contain 'NC' are definitely not compatible. CC 3.0 BY-SA 'may' be compatible.
Please discuss any other license issues with maintainers, and make them clear in any pull requests you create.
We endeavor to review, approve/request changes, and reply to questions on PRs within a couple of days. This is a low-staff-count project with only a few active developers who are not paid to contribute their time.
PRs opened and with requested changes by staff, which are not attended to for 5 days or longer will be closed. You can reopen them when you have time to make the requested changes.
There is no schedule for PRs to the Release branch, which is what the live server runs from. They are done when we have time and feel a sufficient amount of updates have built up. We are too small a shop to implement any sort of development lifecycle that we could follow with regularity.
PRs must be approved, and must sit for comment for 48 hours without additional commits if they contain any gameplay changes. For pure refactors, bugfixes of reported issues (that are not suggestions, but rather obviously restore intended functionality), and other things that do not have an effect on the actual performance of the game, this wait can be skipped.
You are not 'owed' an approval, ever. Some PRs will be closed without approvals, unmerged. Just because you created something does not mean it will be added to the game. They may be closed due to having issues, not being content or changes the staff wants in the game, or any other reason the staff sees fit. This is a good reason to check with development staff and admins before spending a lot of time on a large project.
You can create a WIP PR if you are wanting developer input or comments on your code. Please do not create them if you just want a place to shove your code while you continue working on it.
There is no obligation on the part of the staff to leave 'WIP' PRs open. They can clutter the PR list and often sit unattended for an extended time, especially when the 'owner' of the PR isn't really seeking comments or help.
Staff helping/giving suggestions on WIP PRs shouldn't be construed as any sort of approval of the content of the PR. Just because staff helped you with the code does not mean it will eventually be merged. Your PR could change, or it could be that the person who helped you with your code does not represent the entire staff.
[MIRROR] PRs (Bot PRs)
These PRs are created by a bot designed to mirror all PRs made on our upstream codebase(s). Care should be taken when making changes to them to allow the best merging in the future. Make sure to not CLOSE any, but if some undesired feature is added, they should be merged, and a separate PR created to handle the removal, or, if it's possible, the feature can be commented out in an additional commit in the mirror PR's branch. Keep in mind what will work best for future merges and code cleanliness. The more 'ugly' merges performed, the more MIRROR PRs will require work.
Please make sure to explain fully what the issue is. Assume someone has never played your department before, and explain the steps to reproduce it. Please try to avoid using 'gameplay' steps that assume the reader knows how to perform them. For example, saying "Fill the protolathe" is not a good explanation step in an issue, but "Click with metal sheets on the protolathe" is, because it explains how to perform that step without assuming the user knows what a protolathe is, what it would be "filled" with, etc. Yes, it's a few more words, but it ensures that more people can look at and resolve your issue.
If the bug exists on our upstream codebase, please report the issue there, not here. In general, most bugs will exist there unless they are something specific to VOREStation.
Unfortunately due to the nature of GitHub, there is no way to separate 'suggestions' from bug reports, other than flimsy labels. While you can suggest changes, please make it clear that your suggestion is in fact a suggestion, and not just 'reporting a bug' that the game doesn't work how you want it to work.
The staff has no obligation to actually perform your suggestion, and it may be closed, especially if it's poorly worded or makes no sense. Nobody wants to read through the comments to 'figure out what you meant'.
Comments should be constructive. They should express how you feel about the contents of the issue or PR, not about the person who made it. If you think someone is being deceptive or otherwise unfit to be contributing, please bring it up to staff directly rather than on one of their issues/PRs.
As always, issues and PRs, and the comments therein, must follow the Rules.
Using issues or PRs as a means of attacking someone won't be tolerated. They are to make the codebase better, not to push your personal agenda against another user.
If comments, issues, or PRs are made by any user who hasn't been active on the server in a very long time (if ever), which seem disruptive or otherwise unwanted, the user may be subject to being blocked from the repository, or their comments/issues/PRs removed.
Their views are simply not often as relevant as those who actually participate, and the staff will not get bogged down pleasing people who don't actually use the services we provide. They may have comments about what happened on another server who adopted similar code or changes, but in many cases they simply leave their opinion about 'what you should do'.