On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM, David Doria wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:25 AM, David Cole
> wrote:
> > I think we're too close to the first release candidate of CMake 2.8.3 to
> be
> > adding features at this point.
> > But this is a great candidate for an early change immediately afte
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:25 AM, David Cole wrote:
> I think we're too close to the first release candidate of CMake 2.8.3 to be
> adding features at this point.
> But this is a great candidate for an early change immediately after the
> 2.8.3 release. If we get it into 'next' immediately after t
I think we're too close to the first release candidate of CMake 2.8.3 to be
adding features at this point.
But this is a great candidate for an early change immediately after the
2.8.3 release. If we get it into 'next' immediately after the upcoming
release, then all the kinks (there will be one o
> OK... good. I was just clarifying for the readers of the thread why we will
> not be "auto-configuring-for-multiple-iterations"... Ever. :-)
>
Ok, so is the voting over? There didn't seem to be much participation
(as expected...). Where does it go from here?
David
__
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Diablo 666 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > What I meant was that the curses and Qt UI's should behave more like
> 'cmake'.
>
> What does cmake actually do? The following code runs into an infinite loop
> on
> ccmake (like intended), but cmake seems to finish after the first pa
Hi,
> What I meant was that the curses and Qt UI's should behave more like 'cmake'.
What does cmake actually do? The following code runs into an infinite loop on
ccmake (like intended), but cmake seems to finish after the first pass (it just
prints
out "on" once), though there is a newly introd
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Michael Wild wrote:
>
> On 7. Sep, 2010, at 18:22 , David Cole wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Michael Wild wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 7. Sep, 2010, at 17:30 , David Cole wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Doria
> >> wrote:
> >>>
On 7. Sep, 2010, at 18:22 , David Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Michael Wild wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7. Sep, 2010, at 17:30 , David Cole wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Doria
>> wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Cole
>> wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Michael Wild wrote:
>
> On 7. Sep, 2010, at 17:30 , David Cole wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Doria
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Cole
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The "Generate" button should be enabled after the first conf
>
> Please reply with more feedback:
>>>
>>> How many of you would:
>>> - keep the current behavior exactly as is, it's good
>>> - enable "Generate" unconditionally
>>> - something in between
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> David C.,
>>
>> I fear all of the votes for "enable generate uncond
On 7. Sep, 2010, at 17:30 , David Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Doria wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Cole wrote:
>>
>>> The "Generate" button should be enabled after the first configure.
>>>
>>> It's not enabled because the prevailing theory of the d
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Doria wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Cole wrote:
>
>> The "Generate" button should be enabled after the first configure.
>>
>> It's not enabled because the prevailing theory of the day was that you
>> shouldn't allow generate unless there we
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Cole wrote:
> The "Generate" button should be enabled after the first configure.
>
> It's not enabled because the prevailing theory of the day was that you
> shouldn't allow generate unless there were *no* *new* cache entries after
> the most recent configure
The "Generate" button should be enabled after the first configure.
It's not enabled because the prevailing theory of the day was that you
shouldn't allow generate unless there were *no* *new* cache entries after
the most recent configure... -- force users to pay attention to those new
red entries
On 5. Sep, 2010, at 20:30 , David Doria wrote:
> Lately I've been making a class full of students use CMake. Without
> exception, I've had to explain why you have to configure twice to
> build VTK. I imagine they are a representative sample of the "Level 0"
> CMake user - they just want the proje
Lately I've been making a class full of students use CMake. Without
exception, I've had to explain why you have to configure twice to
build VTK. I imagine they are a representative sample of the "Level 0"
CMake user - they just want the project they are trying to build "to
work" with default option
16 matches
Mail list logo
