Daniel Teske wrote: >> > I have the choice between supporting an existing patch that comes from >> > a CMake user which is declared by him as "serving the purpose" and >> > supporting an approach that does not have a patch >> >> A superior approach which will serve more than one user. It will instead >> serve all CMake users. > Clearly Oleksii prefers his solution, and no user has actually spoken up > in a thread which specifally asked users to speak up.
I use CMake :). > >> > , and for which I rate the chance of showing up at all at about zero. >> >> Why is your expectation so low? >> >> Why do you think I'm on this mailing list and this thread. > Maybe you should tell us? Because your actions don't speak of any interest > in Creator. I see one patch in Creator which adjusted Creator's code to a > api change in qt. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.devel/11888 I want to improve the way CMake and creator work together. >> That is not correct. They can not co-exist. What is installed by running >> make install may not be the same as what is in the deployment file. You >> would have to have UI to allow the user to configure which one is >> authoritive. > There's absolutely no reason we can't support two different ways of > deployment, apart from my unwilligness to maintain two. Which just means > that someone else has to step up to do it. I stepped up to do it and was met with hostility. How does what you wrote above relate to the quote below? Daniel Teske wrote: > I don't want to maintain multiple ways. That's beyond what I consider > reasonable effort for the benefit. (Others can disagree and volunteer.) I > want one solution. Are you now saying multiple solutions is ok? Thanks, Steve. _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
