Updating a patch on developer.blender.org?

Archive Blender Development
1

Earlier today I decided to download and test D10567.
I encountered a couple of conflicts when I tried to apply the patch on top of current master, so I edited the patch accordingly.

I now have two questions:

  1. Would it be useful for me to share the edited patch? (I assume yes, but I just want to check)
  2. And if so, what is the “proper” way for me to do that?
2

it’s easiest if you apply the patch with arcanist for most patches it’ll know the hash the patch was based on, so it’ll always apply, from there you can 9.5 out of 10 times just merge master on top of it without issues. (it does for D10567)

1 Like
3

It has a branch too, so that would’ve been easier to get the changes locally. https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/history/tracking_scopes/

Yes

Suggest using arcanist’s ability of updating other people’s patches, after asking the authors (https://blender.chat) ofc. If that fails (maybe it’s allowed to moderators only) then create a new diff and share the diff ID.

1 Like
4

I didn’t know about arcanist before, now I do. I’ll make sure to use that in future.

Since the original patch can still be merged without conflict using arcanist, then my edited version seems a bit pointless. So I guess it’s probably simplest to just leave the patch as-is.

But anyway, thanks for the replies. I learned something new today :slight_smile:

5

No arcanist is not a merge solver. It just applies the patch on that old hash of master where it was created from.
Before committing the patch, someone would have to rebase or merge to update it to the latest state of master, and thus make the changes you made.

6

Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
However, in the case of this specific patch, if I apply the patch on top of the hash that it was created from, and then rebase to current master, then there are no conflicts (I tried it myself yesterday, after setting up arcanist).
The conflicts only arose because I was trying to apply the patch directly on top of master. My mistake.

So it just seems to me that in this case, if I share my changes, I would potentially be making more work for someone else to review those changes, but without actually saving anyone any time or effort because those exact same changes can be generated automatically.