On 7/12/07, Alan W. Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-07-12 13:39-0400 Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Alan W. Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In contrast, using a browser to search through
>> html results would be painful.
>
> Do you mean it would be painful under some new re
On 7/12/07, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Docs.. Lets talk about that for a second.
The only place I found that command was if I did a 'cmake --help-
html /tmp/cmake.html' and then searched through the html file. I
actually found the macro by looking through the "modules"
installa
On Thursday 21 June 2007 16:56, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am; note the subject line.
> >
> > That is not enough to make me talk about it. My concern is not what
> > you call a 'documentation strategy'. I think that's tail chasing,
>
On 6/21/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am; note the subject line.
That is not enough to make me talk about it. My concern is not what
you call a 'documentation strategy'. I think that's tail chasing,
mostly.
So you think this whole wiki <--> docs discussion, and somehow
On 6/21/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> My conclusion is
> that Kitware doesn't have the resources to address these things, and
> the community has to find a way to do it.
If I understood correctly, kitware does not do any money off CMake. They
just need
I am; note the subject line.
That is not enough to make me talk about it. My concern is not what
you call a 'documentation strategy'. I think that's tail chasing,
mostly. My concern is what I see as a tendency towards overbroad
generalizations on your part.
It's long and run-on but p
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> My conclusion is
> that Kitware doesn't have the resources to address these things, and
> the community has to find a way to do it.
If I understood correctly, kitware does not do any money off CMake. They
just need CMake to be good and usable, so that they can make money
On 6/21/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To see an example of a project taking advantage of doxygen for general
documentation, you can check Yzis - http://doc.yzis.org .
Doxygen is certainly a broadly accepted standard in open source. I
just don't know if anyone has done wiki <--
On 6/20/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Also, students and other sorts of open source cheapskates do not buy
> books.
As a graduate student who knows a lot of other students (both graduate
and undergraduate), I can't accept this claim. Between me and m
On 6/20/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Counting on people to buy books to do evaluations is bad strategy.
I'm not talking strategy. I'm simply saying that your broad claim that
I am; note the subject line. Strategy is about broad patterns of behavi
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 21:09, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
...
> > No, they were planning to port huge chunks of libraries to Windows.
>
> Yes, exactly. Please note that "planning to port huge chunks of
> libraries to Windows" means they were not yet ported to Windows. It
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> All in all, CMake is a good and powerful tool, but I find that the
>> documentation is lacking behind. More structure, more usage example,
>> more common cases would in my opinion really help the user experience.
On 2007-06-20 20:33-0400 Brandon Van Every wrote:
On 6/20/07, Alan W. Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the subversion book
(freely downloadable from http://svnbook.red-bean.com/ in a number of
editions and translations) is a huge lifesaver, and I think it is one of
the
fundamental reasons why
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Also, students and other sorts of open source cheapskates do not buy
> books.
As a graduate student who knows a lot of other students (both graduate
and undergraduate), I can't accept this claim. Between me and my
officemates, we probably have upwards of $5k in books we
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Counting on people to buy books to do evaluations is bad strategy.
I'm not talking strategy. I'm simply saying that your broad claim that
people will not buy a book to do an evaluation may not reflect reality,
especially given that any engineering shop worth the name wi
On 6/20/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > They aren't going to buy a book to do an evaluation.
>
> They often will. I can shell out $40, wait a few days for it to arrive
> and get other paying w
On 6/20/07, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting "Alan W. Irwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I bought the book and it's worth every cent.
Once you know the basics of CMake, you can walk the way yourself
That's what I expected. I just don't / didn't need it.
but
getting started w
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> They aren't going to buy a book to do an evaluation.
They often will. I can shell out $40, wait a few days for it to arrive
and get other paying work done in the meantime, then have enough data on
hand to evaluate CMake properly in just the space of a few hours... or I
On 6/20/07, Alan W. Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-06-20 10:56-0400 Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> All in all, CMake is a good and powerful tool, but I find that the
>> documentation is lacking behind. More structure, more usage e
Quoting "Alan W. Irwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I bought the book and it's worth every cent.
Once you know the basics of CMake, you can walk the way yourself but
getting started with only the docs available in the website is wasting
your time.
On 2007-06-20 10:56-0400 Brandon Van Every wrote
On 2007-06-20 10:56-0400 Brandon Van Every wrote:
On 6/20/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All in all, CMake is a good and powerful tool, but I find that the
documentation is lacking behind. More structure, more usage example,
more common cases would in my opinion really help the
On 6/20/07, Philippe Fremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All in all, CMake is a good and powerful tool, but I find that the
documentation is lacking behind. More structure, more usage example,
more common cases would in my opinion really help the user experience.
Well, you can buy the "Mastering
22 matches
Mail list logo
