Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add LLTurbo client #1002

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

Fyphen1223
Copy link
Contributor

Add LLTurbo client.

@viztea
Copy link
Contributor

viztea commented Jan 6, 2024

This is literally a fork of Shoukaku with a name change...

@Fyphen1223
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nah it supports voice receiving support on NodeLink...
Should I send this to NodeLink not here?

@Fyphen1223
Copy link
Contributor Author

Um I think so, I will reopen this PR when I changed this client drastically. Sorry for disturbing.

@Fyphen1223 Fyphen1223 closed this Jan 6, 2024
@1Lucas1apk
Copy link
Contributor

I think this modification is not valid for adding a package that supports other software that is not lavalink, the right thing to do would be to go to NodeLink and ask them to add it there

@ThePedroo
Copy link
Contributor

I totally disagree. NodeLink follows LavaLink protocols. If this is not accepted by that reason, clients that adds a plugin support shouldn't be added since it's not LavaLink.

I didn't look at the source, but if this is only the addition of NodeLink features, it should be a PR to shoukaku, not its own client. Now, if it's an almost entirely new base without being mostly the same, it's okay, as we have erela.js forks that are now clients.

@1Lucas1apk
Copy link
Contributor

I disagree, imagine a user making a fork in the coglink repo, and making a modification to a software that has different functionalities and then announcing it as a package with a different name, I feel like it's undervaluing the user's work, and it's not that question, he modified the shoudoku package to with nodelink functionalities, it's the same thing as having 2 shodouku only one with a different name, and functionality that won't work with lavalink, and it's unnecessary to try to put it on the client list, as you said in a certain part, if he at least hired the owner of the package to make it compatible it would also be ideal
Or ask another software to add it as a "nodelink" client

@ThePedroo
Copy link
Contributor

Please do not put words in my mouth.

"but if this is only the addition of NodeLink features, it should be a PR to shoukaku"
"not its own client."
"almost entirely new base without being mostly the same, it's okay"

@devoxin
Copy link
Member

devoxin commented Jan 6, 2024

As it currently stands this library isn't distinctive enough to warrant adding to the client library list, therefore it won't be added until it is at a point where it could be considered its own client, rather than just a fork of.

@lavalink-devs lavalink-devs locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 6, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants