I am not here to build merit. When myself and others start using find & replace in the files generated by CMake, that should raise some concerns. For people who have sent me private e-mails, I don't understand why you don't express your frustrations on the mailing list. Apparently people here believe everything is nice and dandy.
What I wrote in the previous e-mails weren't attempts to influence the community or your design plans. Reason why I wrote such a big e-mail was to make my intentions to contribute known and get some feedback and guidance. Currently CMake offers a generator selection plus a completely separate and hidden toolset setting. This is not natural for Visual Studio. If we want to be even more specific, a VS solution can have a mixture of platforms and toolsets, all defined per project, and they're very tightly coupled. A set of hard-coded platforms, copied from generator to generator, will not cut it for me I'm sorry. If the community and I have different minimum levels of acceptance when it comes to maintenance and flexibility, then I can live with a modified version of CMake in my own repository. Don't think anyone though would be happy with having a separate CMake that works better for Visual Studio. Dan On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan Cristiu wrote: > > > Wanted to add a simple change to the VS11 generator to support > non-default > > toolsets, but after taking another look through the code for the VS10 > > generator and above, I decided I wasn't happy with the result. It shows > > those files have been the result of years of patches, with much of the > > code just copied and pasted. > > I'm not interested in Visual Studio personally, but from reading the > mailing > list and bug updates, where there is design discussion about those > generators, I think you have the wrong impression there. > > As you are new here, I guess you have not been aware of those design > discussions. > > The suggestion to put everything in the generator name is the exact > opposite > direction to where the cmake design is going. You're not likely to have > success turning that around just by suggesting it, and without being > involved in (or even aware of) previous discussions. > > Being new, you need to build merit in order to participate in a > meritocracy. > I recommend reading/searching the mailing list archives or bug tracker > before making suggestions or conclusions about the code or design. > > Thanks, > > Steve. > > > -- > > 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 >
-- 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
