Re: [cmake-developers] hot to get something from stage to next or master ?

2010-11-17 Thread Brad King
On 11/17/2010 04:59 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > I haven't done the final push yet. > Is it ok to do that push ? Yes. > Doesn't that go around the stage then again ? Yes, but the difference is that the stage now has the named topic branch on it. Previously you never even pushed that name to

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-17 Thread David Cole
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Wednesday 17 November 2010, David Cole wrote: >> 2010/11/17 Alexander Neundorf : >> > On Thursday 14 October 2010, David Cole wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf > wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday 13 October 20

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-17 Thread Brad King
On 11/17/2010 04:50 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > That's why this policy has to be set to NEW to avoid breakage. As Dave said, the entire design of policies is based on defaulting to WARN, as in "do what I did before but tell people it is no longer the right way". If that doesn't make sense in t

Re: [cmake-developers] hot to get something from stage to next or master ?

2010-11-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 15 November 2010, you wrote: ... > The stage is the most important part of this new workflow. Apparently > we haven't effectively communicated that to everyone here on the CMake > developers' list. I have a problem/question here. I did "ssh g...@cmake.org stage cmake merge -b next Impro

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 17 November 2010, David Cole wrote: > 2010/11/17 Alexander Neundorf : > > On Thursday 14 October 2010, David Cole wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-17 Thread David Cole
2010/11/17 Alexander Neundorf : > On Thursday 14 October 2010, David Cole wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote: >> > > > So, I think we have to use th

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 14 October 2010, David Cole wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote: > > > > So, I think we have to use the new name approach. Do we want to ca

[cmake-developers] [CMake 0011469]: CMAKE_USER_MAKE_RULES_OVERRIDE with system checks goes into recursion and aborts

2010-11-17 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11469 == Reported By:Vladislav Vaintroub Assigned To:

[cmake-developers] [CMake 0011468]: Extra "lib" in -l linker flag: -llibssleay32

2010-11-17 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11468 == Reported By:Sergey Belyashov Assigned To: