On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, troy d. straszheim <t...@resophonic.com> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:27 PM, David Abrahams <d...@boostpro.com> wrote: >>> >>> on Fri Jan 09 2009, "Beman Dawes" <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Is anyone planning to submit a BoostCon proposal for a talk, tutorial, >>>> or workshop on Boost CMake? >>>> >>>> Seems like this would be a natural to build momentum. >>> >>> I've been considering that. > > My orbit is coming back around... I've been planning to submit a talk > on the state of boost-cmake. Just booked my hotel room.
Wonderful! > Should I proceed or does somebody else want to take this one? You and possibly Michael Jackson would be naturals. Dave is always a great presenter, but there are other topics that could benefit from his insights. > >> Great! >> >> Here are some off the top of my head thoughts, intended to stimulate >> discussion: >> >> It seems to me that there are several different Boost CMake tasks >> someone might want to accomplish, and documentation and/or training >> needs to be oriented toward those tasks. The tasks might be broken >> down like this: >> >> 1) Build one or more libraries, possibly with variants. >> >> 2) Test one or more libraries locally. >> >> 3) Set up simple build and test configurations for a library that >> does not require any deep understanding of Boost CMake. >> >> 4) Learn enough about Boost CMake to be able to set up complex >> configurations, or set up configurations that do not follow the >> standard patterns. Be able to support other users and help maintain >> Boost CMake. >> >> Docs for tasks 1-3 should contain only material relevant to the task >> at hand. IOW, be very task oriented. >> >> For BoostCon, it would be great if there was one session that covered >> a bit of an overview and then how to accomplish tasks 1 and 2, and >> then another session (or sessions) were devoted to 3 and 4. The 1-2 >> session would be a prerequisite for the 3-4 session, at least for >> those with no prior exposure to CMake. > > Sounds reasonable to me. It isn't clear to me that this would take > two sessions, you could probably do it all in 60-90 minutes, maybe > before lunch: do the task-oriented part first, then announce > that those who aren't interested in gory details can split. While I'm sure you *could* do a decent presentation in 60-90 minutes, I'd like to suggest thinking in terms of actually getting participants up-to-speed and running stuff on their laptops. That will take more time than you just showing a bunch of powerpoint slides, but I think people will get much more out of a more interactive session. > I suppose we should plan for some birds-of-a-feather type sessions as > well. Yes. Also see the reply I'm about to write to Bill Hoffman's query. --Beman _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
