Blender LTS: Maintenance Task 4.2 #124452
Labels
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset System
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
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
Viewport & EEVEE
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Asset Browser Project
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
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
Module
Viewport & EEVEE
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Severity
High
Severity
Low
Severity
Normal
Severity
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
9 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: blender/blender#124452
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
This task is a management task to track the commits and fixes that will be or are already applied to Blender 4.2 rolling release. The process is documented on https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/User:Jbakker/projects/BlenderLTS/ProcessDescription
NOTE: When changing this task please make sure to stick to the markup. The description is parsed to generate the release notes.
blender-v4.2-release
tomain
:main
:To Be Backported
NOTE: When adding commits please add the repository prefix to it. The release note generator requires the prefix.
NOTE: When adding items, please add them to the bottom of the
To Be Backported
list (not theBlender 4.2.x
list).NOTE: please leave a remark if a particular commit needs library updates in the branch, e.g. #109771
NOTE: commits are checked for having followup-issues (skipped for release in that case), if there are other reasons a commit should not be in a particular release, please also leave a remark (or remove the commit from the list again)
main
#126147blender/blender@7597f494b9conflicts because ofa9a047c0e3
, prefer if @mont29 / @jacqueslucke checkDid not realized SharedData for PackedFiles was not in 4.2, this backport is not needed then -- @mont29
Blender 4.2.2
main
BKE_paint_brushes_validate
->BKE_paint_brush_validate
"Note that I would consider this very scary to backport to 4.2" in blender/blender!125084, needs clarification @mont29 @JulianEisel
I would rather wait for 4.2.2 to backport this one
- @mont29Backported through blender/blender!127696
build errors in debug mode (buildbot apparently catches these) because of missing LIB_EMBEDDED_DATA, prefer if @mont29 checksBackported through blender/blender!127700
Blender 4.2.1
main
blender-v4.2-release
main
different from release branch fix/workaroundblender-v4.2-release
7fcd4e2429
, this is a 4.2 specific workaround that is more minimal and safe, also fixes #125466eevee_instance.cc
only)@dfelinto I assume
@ChrisLend , @Sean-Kim : I had backports with seemingly non-trivial conflicts (check the
To Be Backported
list), prefer if you could check and make a PR targeting the 4.2 branch if possible)@pragma37 : can you make a PR targeting the 4.2 branch if possible regarding #124876 ?
@mont29 @JulianEisel reg. blender/blender@a5970b8248 do we have consensus if this should go into LTS (check the
To Be Backported
list)@Sergey reg. blender/blender@5ce29bedf6 , can you decide (dont feel confident enough myself to make that decision)
@Sean-Kim : can you make a PR targeting the 4.2 branch if possible regarding blender/blender@338140f1e6 ?
I used the ones I mentioned
I would wait for 4.2.2 to backport this one. The changes are fairly large and complex, hard to rule out further issues with barely 2 weeks of existence in
main
.@lichtwerk blender/blender@5ce29bedf6 looks fine. If we're still missing something, we'd correct it in one of the coming corrective releases. But overall I think it is a bugfix, and not a risky one.
EDIT: I've backported the commit.
@lichtwerk I made a combined PR for one of the issues: #126088: Fix: Wrong message in driver for disabled execution
The other commit (
28dd78457a
) I dropped from the backport list. Without the refactor preceding that, it is quite hard to backport and I am more worried about introducing bugs that fixing such a minor issue.Edit: eating my hat on the last one. Can't drop since it's a regression from 4.1
Will look for a suitable fix
@lichtwerk I have been working with the Cycles team to improve the Cycles render tests and we were wondering if you'd like some of these backported to 4.2 LTS to help catch unexpected changes during backporting?
Just for reference, the changes are only in the Blender repo, not the
blender-tests-data
repo. The commits simply enable test configurations that were previously missing.Here are a list of commmits, what they do, and difficulites of backporting them.
@Alaska : these all seem fine to me (so feel free to add them to the backport list)
For the last one, it seems to make most sense to create a 4.2 PR (with the failing tests already in the blocklist), just mention the PR in the backport list)
@Scurest @aras_p @HooglyBoogly @ideasman42 there were some backports that need further clarification (check the
To Be Backported
list)@lichtwerk updated the two issues (had outdated SHA1's for some reason).
Ah, my breaking commit actually wasn't in 4.2.
Inspecting (issue) editing history in gitea is just awefull... So you removed a commit fro the backport list?
Yeah, I removed
a716685f2f
.@lichtwerk and @ThomasDinges I was wondering if I could get your input on whether or not this commit should be included in 4.2 LTS and possibly 3.6 LTS.
Expand for details
The commit in question:
blender/blender@84bab7f300
What the commit does:
Fixes a bug that under certain circumstances Cycles light tree would skip certain lights during NEE, leading to artifacts (parts of lights missing), or increased noise in the impacted areas depending on the radius of the light and how close it is to the impacted surface. #126592 is an example of the artifacts case.
Reason it's not suitable for a LTS release:
In basically every scene that uses the light tree feature (which is most scenes as the feature is enabled by default), Cycles render noise will change. In some scenes, the noise may increase to a point where this change would be considered a regression in sampling quality (We have not found these scenes in our limited testing (Only 10 or so scenes), this is hypothetical at the moment).
Arguments for and against adding it to LTS:
Against:
For:
I will note that there are work arounds an artist can employ to avoid this issue.
Thx explaining that in detail @Alaska . I think in this case (since the pros and cons seem equally relevant to me), it is really up to the module to decide here. What would be the "worst-case" scenario here? A studio having to re-render a bunch of shots? That is of course bad for LTS, but the upside of having a relevant bug fixed equals this out (at least to me). So no objections from my side to include it, final call would have to be made by @Sergey @LukasStockner @weizhen I think
Changes in noise pattern is okay to accept. If there is some bigger impact on the quality, we'd need to fix it anyway, and can port it to LTS as well.
TO me it seems fine to port the fix form Alaska. As was mentioned it i probably not something people run into, more importantly, there are people in the community who will benefit from the port.
@ideasman42 / @mont29 : some questions on the backports marked in the
To Be Backported
list, mind checking?@lichtwerk submitted a PR's for commits that conflicted.