Update CommunityTechTree.netkan to state with Nertea seal-of-approval

[lOmicronl]

No description provided.

[Dazpoet]

Should this conflict with OpenTree?

[dbent]

Please clean up the supports relationships in this and other PRs for the reasons specified in my post here.

In addition:

• It's counter to how existing mods use the relationship.
• It forces information not specific to the mod into the mod's metadata. What happens when a new mod adds support for CTT? Do we update CTT's metadata and force an update when nothing about CTT itself has changed?
• It's redundant with the inverse depends, recommends, suggests, or supports relationships of the other mods.
• It will hamper efforts to make supports more than an informational field in the future.

Your point about CKAN not showing inverse relationships is well taken and I've submitted KSP-CKAN/CKAN#100 which I may implement myself.

[pjf]

For what it's worth, supports is an "information only" field as defined by the spec, which means we might show it to users, but we'll never use it to decide what to install, or not to install. Supports essentially says "X works well with Y", and the CTT definitely works well with all the mods in the support list. :)

However since we've seen two interpretations of supports, this implies that we really need to clarify the spec on this point. I've opened KSP-CKAN/CKAN#1104 for this purpose. My opinion is that this PR looks pretty good as it is, and if we're forcing users to update if the supports (or any other information-only) field changes, then that's a bug (or at least misfeature) in our client.

[lOmicronl]

@Dazpoet Indeed it should. It escaped my search for other tech trees because it does not have the word "tech" in its name, which is the keyword I looked for. Once I figure out how to edit an already pending pull request, I will change that.

But perhaps it's best to leave the pull request open another day or two anyway, until pjf's discussion on clarifying the spec on the topic of the 'supports' relationship bears fruit. Once I know into which direction things are heading, I'll know whether to remove, change or leave the current entries in that field. CTT is currently working just fine anyway, it doesn't particularly need this update except for information purposes (and perhaps noting the conflict).

[Dazpoet]

Seems ETT will be added to CKAN pretty soon aswell #1581

[lOmicronl]

Noted.

Also I completely pressed a wrong button and accidentally closed this... let's see what this button here does...

[pjf]

Also I completely pressed a wrong button and accidentally closed this... let's see what this button here does...

Today I learned there's a re-open button for pull requests. (I swear that didn't exist a couple of years ago!)

[lOmicronl]

I took out the 'supports' block for now, and added conflicts for all tech trees I could find. Should be okay to pull in now.