On 23 December 2010 14:47, Michael Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I also did some contributions to homebrew, and I have to agree > that patches get picked up really quickly. There's one big "but", > though: Writing a formula is fairly simple. Just copy an existing > formula that is similar to your favourite package, adapt it, build, > commit and push. Many contributions are even much simpler: just update > the version number, done. The learning curve is extremely low. Also, > Homebrew is Mac-only, so contributors don't have to worry about all the > exotic platforms out there. They are geeks and nerds who like to build > stuff themselves. I'd bet that almost everybody using Homebrew is also > contributing to the formulae, but I'm very sure that only a select few > actually ever even take look into the internals and supply patches to > this part of the project.
Yep, good points here, I do agree, I guess I was just trying to be more specific. > I think almost everything that fits into the CMake-picture would get > accepted as long as it meets the quality standards, is documented and > tested. Also, FindXXX.cmake module need a maintainer who commits to > keeping them up-to-date and fixing issues that crop up. Also good to know. > Agreed. Sometimes the response is a bit disappointing. But this probably > also has to do with the fact that one's personal pet-itch isn't as > important to other people as one would like it to be ;-) Sure, I get that from Homebrew too. I guess my point is that an apathetic response is better than none at all. I'll use the developers list for this now though. > That said, I think it has become much easier to contribute than in CVS > times. That was just a PITA. But there certainly is room for > improvement, I agree with that. For one, the Wiki is plain inaccessible. > E.g. above mentioned CMake/Git Wiki page is completely isolated. Nothing > links there! Also, the Git/Workflow/Topic page is only reached from (1) > this isolated CMake/Git page or from the ITK development documentation. > Then, there is a clear lack of documentation on how to prepare a new > test. Looking into the existing tests doesn't really help (at least that > was my impression), as most of the stuff is so convoluted, it takes > hours to pick apart. I would agree with this. There's probably a fair amount of wiki organisation that could be done (which I guess I could help with too) and some of it could be rolled into the main CMake documentation perhaps (such as variable descriptions). I too would love more development/test documentation. -- Mike McQuaid http://mikemcquaid.com _______________________________________________ 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
