Add Explanation About Maintenance Of Extern Libraries #48500

Closed
opened 2016-05-23 04:11:02 +02:00 by Lawrence D'Oliveiro · 29 comments

After having been rebuffed #48491 over a patch to a library in extern, it seems clear that information is sorely lacking about which parts of the Blender source tree are or are not off-limits for patch submissions.

The enclosed patch 0001-add-explanation-about-maintenance-of-extern-librarie.patch adds a README which tries to make clearer the status of the various subdirectories in extern. It lists which ones belong to the Blender Foundation, and refers the reader to external project sites for the rest, where I have been able to determine them: in some cases, I have not been able to do so, or the sites concerned no longer seem to exist.

After having been rebuffed #48491 over a patch to a library in `extern`, it seems clear that information is sorely lacking about which parts of the Blender source tree are or are not off-limits for patch submissions. The enclosed patch [0001-add-explanation-about-maintenance-of-extern-librarie.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314352/0001-add-explanation-about-maintenance-of-extern-librarie.patch) adds a `README` which tries to make clearer the status of the various subdirectories in `extern`. It lists which ones belong to the Blender Foundation, and refers the reader to external project sites for the rest, where I have been able to determine them: in some cases, I have not been able to do so, or the sites concerned no longer seem to exist.

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'

Added subscriber: @ldo

Added subscriber: @ldo
Member

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung
Member
  • curve_fit_nd is also a BF developed module, ported over from similar code found in the OpenToonz project.
  • glew - I thought this was at http://glew.sourceforge.net/ ?
* **curve_fit_nd** is also a BF developed module, ported over from similar code found in the OpenToonz project. * **glew** - I thought this was at http://glew.sourceforge.net/ ?
Member

Removed subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Removed subscriber: @JoshuaLeung
Member

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

OK, changes made.

extern-readme.patch

And yes, I do consider this a bug.

OK, changes made. [extern-readme.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314360/extern-readme.patch) And yes, I do consider this a bug.

Another question: is there code elsewhere which is also off-limits (e.g. intern/mikktspace)? If so, why isn’t it in extern?

Another question: is there code elsewhere which is also off-limits (e.g. `intern/mikktspace`)? If so, why isn’t it in `extern`?

Added subscribers: @Sergey, @ideasman42, @mont29

Added subscribers: @Sergey, @ideasman42, @mont29

This kind of discussion would be better on our ML imho… @Sergey, @ideasman42?

This kind of discussion would be better on our ML imho… @Sergey, @ideasman42?

@mont29, the patch itself we can and should discuss here. Discussion about what's the policy for intern/ is probably most efficient to be done via IRC.

I don't really have strong opinion here. Two aspects here actually:

Having link to an upstream version of library with exact version and such is something we should have, but i'm not sure having it in a single file will work really good: some libraries are automatically updated, and the update script can update library's README. We can, however, have an aggregate extern/README with just a links to upstream, and still have extern/<lib>/README with all the details about upstream version used and such.

Other aspect is that i'm not really sue we have to put information to extern/README. That would be a bit ridiculous to document policy of each and every folder in the sources. This is something which is mainly belong to a wiki or so.

Quick answer for intern' question: all the code in there is maintained by Blender developers, i don't see what we can move to extern'. All the future details about what and why is in extern or intern better to be moved to IRC.

@mont29, the patch itself we can and should discuss here. Discussion about what's the policy for `intern/` is probably most efficient to be done via IRC. I don't really have strong opinion here. Two aspects here actually: Having link to an upstream version of library with exact version and such is something we should have, but i'm not sure having it in a single file will work really good: some libraries are automatically updated, and the update script can update library's README. We can, however, have an aggregate extern/README with just a links to upstream, and still have `extern/<lib>/README` with all the details about upstream version used and such. Other aspect is that i'm not really sue we have to put information to `extern/README`. That would be a bit ridiculous to document policy of each and every folder in the sources. This is something which is mainly belong to a wiki or so. Quick answer for `intern'` question: all the code in there is maintained by Blender developers, i don't see what we can move to `extern'`. All the future details about what and why is in extern or intern better to be moved to IRC.

Note that we already have much of this info here:

https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Blender_Source/Files_Structure#External_Library_Code_.28extern.2F.29

A while back I updated this list and wrote a script that validates the wiki against the source (to avoid it getting stale).


Wouldn't mind having an extern/README, each lib can be listed.

[library-name] [url] [notes]

where notes can be reference to another readme with details... or what ever info is useful note to add.

Note that we already have much of this info here: https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Blender_Source/Files_Structure#External_Library_Code_.28extern.2F.29 A while back I updated this list and wrote a script that validates the wiki against the source (to avoid it getting stale). ----- Wouldn't mind having an `extern/README`, each lib can be listed. `[library-name] [url] [notes]` where notes can be reference to another readme with details... or what ever info is useful note to add.

Every piece of code in the Blender source tree needs to have a maintainer. What are you going to do about those libraries where upstream has gone away? Even though #48491 was closed on me, I still haven’t received an answer on where I am supposed to submit the patch instead.

Every piece of code in the Blender source tree needs to have a maintainer. What are you going to do about those libraries where upstream has gone away? Even though #48491 was closed on me, I still haven’t received an answer on where I am supposed to submit the patch instead.

It looks, according to #48499, like the code for GHOST is off-limits for patches as well...

It looks, according to #48499, like the code for GHOST is off-limits for patches as well...

Bastien replied there and GHOST is maintained by us.

See how important it to give clear explanation what and where you did in the descruption ;) Same applies to the patches here and commit messages.

Bastien replied there and GHOST is maintained by us. See how important it to give clear explanation what and where you did in the descruption ;) Same applies to the patches here and commit messages.

Don't think it's really handy to have just a one line per library. It's important to have exact version, possible local modifications and such.

Added such information for libraries which i'm bundling into Blender, see 8f04a22, 8f04a22.

Don't think it's really handy to have just a one line per library. It's important to have exact version, possible local modifications and such. Added such information for libraries which i'm bundling into Blender, see 8f04a22, 8f04a22.

I did try to point out that it wasn’t the same task. In the end, I could only interpret their insistence that it was “exactly the same task”, and to “stop reopening them and make noise in tracker”, to mean that “exactly the same grounds for rejection applied”.

Your additions look helpful, but I notice they avoid any mention of the orphaned ones. What do we do about those?

I *did* try to point out that it wasn’t the same task. In the end, I could only interpret their insistence that it was “exactly the same task”, and to “stop reopening them and make noise in tracker”, to mean that “exactly the same grounds for rejection applied”. Your additions look helpful, but I notice they avoid any mention of the orphaned ones. What do we do about those?

Update patch to omit those libraries which now have their own README.blender. extern-readme-20160525.patch

Just a note that having links to archived pages, as in the wiki page, is useless for anything other than historical trivial purposes. We need current contact information.

Update patch to omit those libraries which now have their own README.blender. [extern-readme-20160525.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314593/extern-readme-20160525.patch) Just a note that having links to archived pages, as in the wiki page, is useless for anything other than historical trivial purposes. We need **current** contact information.

Sorry, didn’t intend to submit a diff against my previous patch. Here is a fresh patch that should apply directly against master branch: extern-readme-2016-0525b.patch

Sorry, didn’t intend to submit a diff against my previous patch. Here is a fresh patch that should apply directly against `master` branch: [extern-readme-2016-0525b.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314594/extern-readme-2016-0525b.patch)

Added carve and eigen. Carve we'll be getting rid of soon tho.

The libraries that are maintained by the Blender Foundation is not really correct term. Some of those libraries are just happened to be written by same guys who works for BF, but copyright is not necessarily given to BF. Not even sure why to have that closure?

Added carve and eigen. Carve we'll be getting rid of soon tho. `The libraries that are maintained by the Blender Foundation` is not really correct term. Some of those libraries are just happened to be written by same guys who works for BF, but copyright is not necessarily given to BF. Not even sure why to have that closure?

I didn’t say anything about “copyright”, I said “maintained”. Where are bug reports and patch submissions to go, if not to those acting on behalf of the Blender Foundation, i.e. here, to developer.blender.org?

I didn’t say anything about “copyright”, I said “maintained”. Where are bug reports and patch submissions to go, if not to those acting on behalf of the Blender Foundation, *i.e.* here, to `developer.blender.org`?

...and another couple lines removed.

extern-readme-20160527.patch

...and another couple lines removed. [extern-readme-20160527.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314932/extern-readme-20160527.patch)

Maintained is still not proper word. BF itself doesn't really maintain those, it is developers who maintains libraries. Sometimes they work for BF, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's more that just BF developers who involved into the library. it's quite vague wording currently in there.

  • If you follow the bugs in some libraries can be submitted here art dev.b.o then what's the difference between cuew and clew ?
  • libopenjpeg has it's own README.blender now
  • ceres as well.
Maintained is still not proper word. BF itself doesn't really maintain those, it is developers who maintains libraries. Sometimes they work for BF, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's more that just BF developers who involved into the library. it's quite vague wording currently in there. - If you follow the `bugs in some libraries can be submitted here art dev.b.o` then what's the difference between `cuew` and `clew` ? - `libopenjpeg` has it's own README.blender now - `ceres` as well.

I did say “developers attached to the Blender Foundation”, did I not?

Patch updated extern-readme-20160527b.patch, but already I can see a problem with some of the upstreams, in that there is no bug/patch tracker.

There needs to be some kind of issue tracker available for all these libraries. If upstream does not provide them, then it must fall back to you.

I *did* say “developers attached to the Blender Foundation”, did I not? Patch updated [extern-readme-20160527b.patch](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F314949/extern-readme-20160527b.patch), but already I can see a problem with some of the upstreams, in that there is no bug/patch tracker. There needs to be some kind of issue tracker available for **all** these libraries. If upstream does not provide them, then it must fall back to you.
Member

Added subscriber: @Blendify

Added subscriber: @Blendify
Member

Poke

Poke

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Archived'
Dalai Felinto self-assigned this 2019-12-23 18:42:02 +01:00

Hi, thanks for your patch.

We are undergoing a Tracker Curfew where we are automatically closing old patches.

If you think the patch is still relevant please update and re-submit it. For new features make sure there is a clear design from the user level perspective.

Hi, thanks for your patch. We are undergoing a [Tracker Curfew ](https://code.blender.org/?p=3861) where we are automatically closing old patches. If you think the patch is still relevant please update and re-submit it. For new features make sure there is a clear design from the user level perspective.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
7 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#48500
No description provided.