On Dec 15, 2010, at 8:34 AM, David Cole wrote:
> Having said all that, let me address your specific concern regarding
> the issue closed:
I don't question your motive in closing the issue.
> I agree that the underlying reason for the request is a valid thing to want,
> but the request expresses
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:30 AM, David Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Richard Wackerbarth
> wrote:
>> The following is excerpted from a message that I received this morning.
>>
>> I think that it indicates a direction in the CMake philosophy which concerns
>> me.
>> (See below)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> The following is excerpted from a message that I received this morning.
>
> I think that it indicates a direction in the CMake philosophy which concerns
> me.
> (See below)
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Mantis Bug Tracker wrote:
>>
> The following is excerpted from a message that I received this morning.
>
> I think that it indicates a direction in the CMake philosophy which
> concerns me.
> (See below)
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Mantis Bug Tracker wrote:
>> The following issue has been RESOLVED.
>>
The following is excerpted from a message that I received this morning.
I think that it indicates a direction in the CMake philosophy which concerns me.
(See below)
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Mantis Bug Tracker wrote:
> The following issue has been RESOLVED.
> =
