2012/1/3 Brad King <brad.k...@kitware.com>: > On 1/3/2012 11:03 AM, Eric Noulard wrote: >> >> stage/ImproveCPackDoc-part1 >> contains changes that do not add features but document existing ones. > > > This one looks good. Please merge to next.
It does not merge without conflict: d2c9626 Document undocumented (but existing) cpack options (fix #0010134) Auto-merging Source/CPack/cpack.cxx CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in Source/CPack/cpack.cxx this is due to the fact I did already merge it (the beginning of the old stage/ImproveCPackDoc) to next before 2.8.7 in the hope that it would be included in 2.8.7: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067#c27793 It was dropped because "ImproveCPackDoc" as a whole wasn't considered ready which was off course true... I have to teach myself to provide finer-grain branch merge :-( The left over commit of mine in next are: commit ab6c9c03bcdb89717345d68bdc979d74fd776d04 Author: Eric NOULARD <eric.noul...@gmail.com> Date: Sun Nov 13 22:47:25 2011 +0100 Update cmake bash completion file. commit 1e38d6dd306522a0d08355a6c7ef57293b46b5a6 Author: Eric NOULARD <eric.noul...@gmail.com> Date: Sun Nov 13 22:44:53 2011 +0100 CPack begin the implementation of --help-command* and --help-variables* Author: Eric NOULARD <eric.noul...@gmail.com> Date: Sat Nov 5 14:41:23 2011 +0100 Document undocumented (but existing) cpack options (fix #0010134) Tell me how you would like me to handle my.... mess :-( >> stage/CMake-completion-improvement >> contains the completion update. >> This can be merged to next/master independently from other >> because the changes won't be used unless the new options appears > > So you purposely refer to options that don't yet exist so they will > complete when they do? Yes like I said, this is harmless. In fact I may even implement all "normalized" options (--help-[command|variable|property|policy] completion for cmake/ctest/cpack, if they are not supported they won't be triggered. > Is that only this hunk: Yes: > > + --help-variable) > + local running=$(for x in `cpack --help-variable-list | grep -v > "cpack version" `; do echo ${x} ; done ) > + COMPREPLY=( $(compgen -W "${running}" -- ${cur}) ) > + return 0 > + ;; > + --help-command) > + local running=$(for x in `cpack --help-command-list | grep -v > "cpack version" `; do echo ${x} ; done ) > + COMPREPLY=( $(compgen -W "${running}" -- ${cur}) ) > + return 0 > + ;; > > ? I think that can that be left out and then included in the new > enhancement topic. It won't make the topic any harder to review and > makes it clear when the options are added. I can do that as well, no problem. >> I'll start another branch which will contain new feature only concerning >> "true" enhancement. > Thanks! No problem. -- Erk Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
