[Bf-committers] Developers using #define in headers - how to ???

pete larabell xgl.asyliax at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 18:40:35 CET 2011


Hey all,

A recent occurrence one-again brought a question to my mind...

Is there a preferred method for developers to request "safe" #define's
in certain header files for in-development work they are doing, with
intent that such work will eventually go into trunk?

What I mean by that:

Recently I submitted for review the double edge matte compositor node.
In developing this node, I used the "next available node number" to
represent the node.

for me this was line 570 of source/blender/blenkernel/BKE_node.h

I had used:

#define CMP_NODE_DBLEDGMATTE    262

and a recent merge (which I'm certainly happy to see :) ) added:

#define CMP_NODE_MOVIECLIP      262
#define CMP_NODE_STABILIZE2D    263
#define CMP_NODE_TRANSFORM      264
#define CMP_NODE_MOVIEDISTORTION        265

which of course caused conflict.  Not a big deal, since it's a quick
fix in only one file for me, but it raised the question again in my
head:

Is there something already in place (possibly it's currently just "ask
on #blendercoders" which I supposed would have worked) where devs
could keep a running list of what eachother are doing in certain files
which require unique numbers so as to not overlap numbers like I did?

Again I'm certainly not complaining, and as stated this is incredibly
easy to fix, but in my case, and possibly due to my own negligence, I
had already submitted a patch for review before discovering this
overlap.

I know it could get messy if we have a "developers reservation list"
where people could go reserve arbitrary amounts of #define s for
projects, some of which may never see the light of day.

So all that being said: Is there some way for people like me to avoid
duplication such as this in the future? Or is it best to just ask in
IRC?

Cheers!
Peter


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list