On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't looked thoroughly, but how much does dependency > specification/handling need to change? The dependency of a command on a set > of targets should now be config-specific, right? Does that mean making > changes to cmTargetTraceDependencies::CheckCustomCommand? What other impact > is there on dependency handling here? I am not familiar with that code and can’t answer that question off the top of my head. > Does the first patch in your topic pass the unit tests it adds? Is the > second patch needed for that? If so, they belong in one patch, so squash > them together. The documentation should be added in the patch that adds the > feature, not in a separate patch. The first patch does pass the unit test. The second patch is not needed to pass the test, so I will not be squashing them together. I squashed the documentation into the first patch. On a side note, I am running out of time for contributing these patches back to the project. I am spending more time responding to requests to re-order and change commit messages etc.. than I am changing the code (I am learning and will get it correct one day). I understand that you want your repository history to be as correct as possible and am grateful that you care enough to try and help someone get up to speed. I need to come to some kind of compromise here. If you want these changes I am happy to contribute them, but I don’t have time to spend hours re-working things over and over. If that means it would be better to just contribute patches through email or some other format of code exchange I am happy to do that. If you would like me to just file bug/feature requests, I can do that as well. If you don’t want the changes (at least as I am able to provide them) then I can go back to maintaining my own fork of the sources. I’m not trying to complain or avoid meeting your standards, I’m just having to deal with time priorities that are not going to allow me to keep quibbling over these details.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
