On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:36 PM, David Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM, David Cole wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM, David Cole wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
David Cole wrote:
> Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it
David Cole wrote:
> All set. One more force-push after cleaning up a commit on Brad's
> recommendation and it is now finally merged to 'next'.
>
> Whew.
>
Great!
Thanks for all yor work on getting this through the last mile (or was it
more? :)).
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Powered by www.kitw
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM, David Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM, David Cole wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> David Cole wrote:
>>>
Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of
minor changes that I sti
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM, David Cole wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> David Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of
>>> minor changes that I still need to make first.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Let me know if it's
On 2/22/2012 8:05 AM, David Cole wrote:
> So the most recent commit in the topic branch, which adds
> documentation for the target level property, appears useless... Should
> we eliminate the directory level documentation as well? Or emit both?
Emit both and explain their interaction. The documen
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
>
>> Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of
>> minor changes that I still need to make first.
>
> Ok.
>
> Let me know if it's anything I can do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve.
>
>
> --
>
> Powered
David Cole wrote:
> Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of
> minor changes that I still need to make first.
Ok.
Let me know if it's anything I can do.
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.ki
Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of
minor changes that I still need to make first.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
>
> > Excellent : thanks very much for trying it out. I'll try to get this
> first
> > draft merged
David Cole wrote:
> Excellent : thanks very much for trying it out. I'll try to get this first
> draft merged to 'next' tonight or tomorrow.
Any update on this?
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday 30 January 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > David Cole wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kelly
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> David Cole wrote:
> > >>> OK... nearly complete now. Please review, then reply and tel
On 2/9/2012 3:45 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Just to make completely sure: the purpose of this target property is *not*
that targets linking against a library with this property set should reuse
these include dirs, right ?
Correct. It's just to allow the directory-level INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES
s
On Monday 30 January 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kelly
> >
> > wrote:
> >> David Cole wrote:
> >>> OK... nearly complete now. Please review, then reply and tell me if
> >>> you object to any of the 7 commits in this topic branch.
>
David Cole wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kelly
> wrote:
>> David Cole wrote:
>>> OK... nearly complete now. Please review, then reply and tell me if
>>> you object to any of the 7 commits in this topic branch.
>>
>> No objections. They all seem fine.
>>
>
> Great, thanks.
>
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
>> OK... nearly complete now. Please review, then reply and tell me if
>> you object to any of the 7 commits in this topic branch.
>
> No objections. They all seem fine.
>
Great, thanks.
>> Steve, I've
>> preserved your
David Cole wrote:
> OK... nearly complete now. Please review, then reply and tell me if
> you object to any of the 7 commits in this topic branch.
No objections. They all seem fine.
> Steve, I've
> preserved your authorship for most of these commits, but have
> significantly re-written some of th
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Kelly
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've force pushed my branch:
>>>
>>> https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake/commits/target-
>>> include-directories
>>>
>>> Br
David Cole wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Kelly
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've force pushed my branch:
>>
>> https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake/commits/target-
>> include-directories
>>
>> Brad King wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/8/2012 11:47 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've force pushed my branch:
>
> https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake/commits/target-
> include-directories
>
> Brad King wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2012 11:47 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King
Hi,
I've force pushed my branch:
https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake/commits/target-
include-directories
Brad King wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 11:47 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
> >> I think the property
> >> can be stored just like any othe
Just replying to say I'm not ignoring this message, but I won't have time to
work on it this week :).
Thanks,
Steve.
Brad King wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 11:47 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
> >> I think the property
> >> can be stored just like any other prop
On 1/8/2012 11:47 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
>> I think the property
>> can be stored just like any other property during configuration. Then
>> the generators can use ExpandListArguments.
>
> Would that mean that every generator would have to ensure that
David Cole wrote:
>> How can this feature now be moved forward? Do I need to convince someone
> to volunteer to port the other generators? Should I just file a bug for
> porting the other generators and wait (possibly making the feature
> bitrot)?
>>
>
> I volunteer to make sure this branch works
On Sunday, January 8, 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/2011 12:49 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> I've pushed the branch to my gitorious clone again.
>>>
>>> https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm revisiting this no
On 12/05/2011 03:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
On 12/4/2011 12:49 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I've pushed the branch to my gitorious clone again.
https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake
Hi,
I'm revisiting this now that CMake 2.8.7 is out.
I've force pushed my branch:
https://gitorious
On 09.12.2011 22:23, Brad King wrote:
On 12/9/2011 3:44 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Maybe this is a bit late, but wouldn't it be much
simpler to get this feature with a namespace
inspired approach:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11793
I think the namespace approach will be more intrusiv
On 12/9/2011 3:44 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Maybe this is a bit late, but wouldn't it be much
simpler to get this feature with a namespace
inspired approach:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11793
I think the namespace approach will be more intrusive to implement,
and it is complementary
Maybe this is a bit late, but wouldn't it be much
simpler to get this feature with a namespace
inspired approach:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11793
All within a namespace has the same scope as an
add_subdirectory added target. This way we get more
than the 'target_include_directorie
On 12/4/2011 12:49 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I've pushed the branch to my gitorious clone again.
https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake
Thanks. Why do you maintain a special std::vector member
to hold the INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES target property? I think the property
can be stored j
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Sunday 04 December 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> David Cole wrote:
>> > I, for one, would really like to see per-target include directories in
>> > 2.8.7, even without per-config support to start with. Then, add the
>> > per-config support / new generator expressions
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> David Cole wrote:
> > I, for one, would really like to see per-target include directories in
> > 2.8.7, even without per-config support to start with. Then, add the
> > per-config support / new generator expressions in a later release.
>
> That se
David Cole wrote:
>
> I, for one, would really like to see per-target include directories in
> 2.8.7, even without per-config support to start with. Then, add the
> per-config support / new generator expressions in a later release.
>
That seems unlikely to happen. If RC1 is Wednesday, it would h
On 12/2/2011 8:35 AM, David Cole wrote:
Do you mean I should remove the UI feature of setting the
INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES_DEBUG property adding to the include directories of the
debug config, or do you additionally mean that I should remove the current
implementation that keeps order and keeps the sp
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Brad King wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2011 7:34 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> I worked on the functionality for per-config target includes, but the
>>> syntax is not right yet.
>>
>> Please remove per-config support for now.
>
> Do you mean I should r
Brad King wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:34 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I worked on the functionality for per-config target includes, but the
>> syntax is not right yet.
>
> Please remove per-config support for now.
Do you mean I should remove the UI feature of setting the
INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES_DEBUG p
Brad King wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 3:47 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> https://github.com/Kitware/CMake
>>>
>>> and use the "Fork" button
>>
>> Ok. I've pushed it to my gitorious repo for now. I'll remove the config
>> stuff there and let you know when that's done.
>>
>> Should I push it to github too
On 12/1/2011 3:47 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
https://github.com/Kitware/CMake
and use the "Fork" button
Ok. I've pushed it to my gitorious repo for now. I'll remove the config
stuff there and let you know when that's done.
Should I push it to github too or is gitorious also ok when it's ready f
Brad King wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:34 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I've been working on this topic again, but I forgot that I had not merged
>> it into next. I think I properly reverted it though.
>
> I added another commit to the revert-... branch to fully revert it.
> To avoid accidental merges
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 2:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > ...a somewhat related idea: if it will be possible to set include
> > directories per target, and since it is already possible to set compile
> > flags per target, it would be nice if I could also
On 11/29/2011 2:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...a somewhat related idea: if it will be possible to set include
directories per target, and since it is already possible to set compile flags
per target, it would be nice if I could also set a property on targets which
keeps them from using the g
...a somewhat related idea: if it will be possible to set include
directories per target, and since it is already possible to set compile flags
per target, it would be nice if I could also set a property on targets which
keeps them from using the global settings at all.
Something like
set_targ
On 11/29/2011 7:34 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I've been working on this topic again, but I forgot that I had not merged it
into next. I think I properly reverted it though.
I added another commit to the revert-... branch to fully revert it.
To avoid accidental merges of work-in-progress topics, p
Brad King writes:
>
> On 11/6/2011 5:45 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:I'd prefer it to be though if
> > we can sort out the issues with what should be the target feature set.
>
> Good. We can work on this and revise/rewrite the topic there first and then
> merge to next for testing when the design i
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> For example:
>>
>> project(foo)
>> include_directories(${bar_INCLUDES})
>> add_library(foo_lib ...)
>> target_include_directories(foo CONFIG_TYPE DEBUG debug_helper.h)
>
> Do you think a new command is necessary, and set_property(TARGET ... ) is
> not good enough ?
I
Brad King wrote:
> On 11/6/2011 5:45 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> As discussed on the cmake user mailing list, I'm interesting in
>> implementing the feature of target specific and configuration specific
>> include directories.
>
> Thanks for working on this.
Thanks for the feedback.
> The INC
On 11/7/2011 12:57 PM, Brad King wrote:
The INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES property of a target must be the *only* list
from which the final include directory list is constructed. When a target
is created the current directory-level include directories must be used
to initialize the list. Further include_di
On Monday 07 November 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Sunday 06 November 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed on the cmake user mailing list, I'm interesting in
> > implementing the feature of target specific and configuration specific
> > include
> > directories.
> >
> >
On 11/6/2011 5:49 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Stephen Kelly wrote:
Issues:
* I have only tried to implement this with the makefile generator and have
so far only tested it with "Unix Makefiles". One of the bugs says XCode
can't do source-level includes. Can it do target-level includes? Would I
have
On 11/6/2011 5:45 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
As discussed on the cmake user mailing list, I'm interesting in implementing
the feature of target specific and configuration specific include
directories.
Thanks for working on this.
I've pushed the target-include-directories branch to stage, which
On Sunday 06 November 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Issues:
> > * I have only tried to implement this with the makefile generator and
> > have so far only tested it with "Unix Makefiles". One of the bugs says
> > XCode can't do source-level includes. Can it do target-level i
On Sunday 06 November 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the cmake user mailing list, I'm interesting in
> implementing the feature of target specific and configuration specific
> include
> directories.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.user/39090/fo
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Issues:
> * I have only tried to implement this with the makefile generator and have
> so far only tested it with "Unix Makefiles". One of the bugs says XCode
> can't do source-level includes. Can it do target-level includes? Would I
> have to implement this for all generator
Hi,
As discussed on the cmake user mailing list, I'm interesting in implementing
the feature of target specific and configuration specific include
directories.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.user/39090/focus=39114
I've pushed the target-include-directories branch t
52 matches
Mail list logo
