Am 09.03.2010 20:54, Michael Surette wrote: > First of all, my apologies for the huge patch. After coming out of my > cocoon I noticed the thread concerning the submission of a large patch. > While I understand the reasoning behind your reluctance to accept such > patches, I am hoping that you'll accept it as it stands though for a few > reasons.
Mike, first of all, thanks for your great efforts to help to improve FLTK. I can understand that your redesign of CMake could only be done by rewriting huge parts of the code. I'd like to have a look at it and try it at least in my usual environments, but I'm currently blocked by other work. I noticed your submission, but didn't find any time to look at it :-( [snipped more text] That's also the reason why I can't write any comments to your observations in this message - just the lack of time - but they sound reasonable. > So should I wait and see if the currently submitted patch gets accepted > and then submit a new patch to implement Manlo's suggestion on STR 2299 > and yet another to simplify my code? Yes, please wait. Or submit an additional patch that could be applied after your previous one, so that we can try both together. > Alternatively I could apply those changes and re-submit, either as one > big patch or a series of patches. Personally, this would be my second > choice. If I understood you correctly, your current update would work with CMake 2.6, whilst the alternative would only work with 2.8. Maybe it would be better to stay with 2.6 then, because we should probably support at least some older (Linux) distributions. But I don't know for sure... Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
