Minimally altered custom client recommendation?

[✧]

Hello,

I'm looking for a custom client that alters the feel of the client very little. I like the default client, but I miss a few convenience features, like icons for hearthlings on the map, chat logs, and the auto-sort-by-special-click-combination features.

Which custom client should I use?

Thank you in advance for any advice.

[Granger]

Amber

[sMartins]

Customs are trash, stick to default and write a post in C&I suggesting what to change/add to improve it.

[✧]

I hesitate to suggest features for the default client because I know it takes dev time, and if it can be taken care of by the players that seems like a good thing. It leaves the dev duo free-er to focus on other issues.

(Also I think it's cool that people can modify the client to suit them, and it's cool that the devs allow it.)

I'd like to hear other opinions on whether suggestions for the default client are good things to write C&I suggestions on.

[Granger]

I hesitate to suggest features for the default client because I know it takes dev time, and if it can be taken care of by the players that seems like a good thing. It leaves the dev duo free-er to focus on other issues.

Developer load wouldn't be an issue should they show the willingness to accept reasonable pull requests from others.

Sadly, so far they don't. This might stem from them suffering from NIH syndrome or they want to keep the option to release a closed source client (which they couldn't anymore that easily, should they accept GPL licensed additions from others, as they would have to license these for closed distribution from the external authors) in the future.

[✧]

Interesting, I didn't realize accepting contributions would reduce their freedom in what they can do with the client.

I'm a bit confused though. The source code documentation page seems to address this issue under "Contributing Back" by requiring ownership of any submissions being given completely to Seatribe. Does this policy not actually work to protect their freedom of choice about what they can do with the client code?

Has player-contributed code ever been incorporated into the default client?

Personally I generally prefer when creators do what they personally want with their creations. I think things often turn out nicer that way.

Even accepting contributions requires dev time though, in terms of checking and maybe altering any contributed code, no matter how thoroughly the contributor has already tested themselves.

I'm also still not sure how welcome/helpful suggestions for the default client are, and would still like to hear other opinions about that.

[Granger]

I think a good perspective on this topic is:
Amber is (for many, if not most, factions with their private contraptions aside) the default client, then there is an official one that is (reluctantly, or even not at all) used when Amber is in need of an update after a patch.

[loftar]

Developer load wouldn't be an issue should they show the willingness to accept reasonable pull requests from others.

While it's true that I don't use GitHub a lot and therefore don't check it too often, I can't say I've seen many patch suggestions at all, either via GitHub pull requests, or here in the forums, or in any other form, really.

[borka]

Never used a custom client yourself to grab some ideas ?!?

[romovs]

I can't say I've seen many patch suggestions at all, either via GitHub pull requests, or here in the forums, or in any other form, really.

Might be because people generally don't feel like spending time on PRs when they make one, week after the same issue gets fixed in an identical way, and the PR never gets replied to.
For me personally, if there is no response to PR after at most half a year, no matter whether it gets merged or declined with some explanation, I would never make additional PRs to that project.