On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 August 2011, David Cole wrote: > >> 2011/8/16 Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org>: > >> > On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> > There is now a branch AutomocForQt on the cmake stage. > >> >> > > >> >> > Docs and a test are still missing. > >> >> > >> >> It has a test now. Docs are still missing. > >> > > >> > Now it also has docs. > >> > > >> > I haven't merged it to next yet. > >> > > >> > Any objections ? > >> > > >> > Alex > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > cmake-developers mailing list > >> > cmake-developers@cmake.org > >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers > >> > >> Brad and I just read through some of your recent commits. In the > >> Tests/CMakeLists.txt there's logic that looks like this: > >> > >> IF(NOT QT4_FOUND) > >> FIND_PACKAGE(Qt4) > >> IF(QT4_FOUND) > >> ... > >> ENDIF() > >> ENDIF() > >> > >> Could you change it to this? > >> IF(NOT QT4_FOUND) > >> FIND_PACKAGE(Qt4) > >> ENDIF() > >> IF(QT4_FOUND) > >> ... > >> ENDIF() > >> > >> That way, when we have builds of CMake where Qt is on (to build > >> cmake-gui) it will run the test. As it stands now, looks like it will > >> not run the test when we already *know* we have Qt available... > > Hmm, yes. Not sure what I thought when writing this. > >> After that, go ahead and merge to 'next' and see how it looks on the > >> dashboard. > > Done. > > Can a merge to next actually also be undone ? > > Alex
No need for that unless you really want to get rid of a previous commit... Just continue the topic, making further changes, push it to the stage and merge again. _______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list cmake-developers@cmake.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers