Den ons 22 juli 2026 kl 13:10 skrev Evgeny Kotkov via dev < [email protected]>:
> Hi all, > > This came up in one of the recent threads [1]: it seems that we haven't > agreed on the official status of CMake for 1.15. > > From the RM standpoint, this is something we should settle before the final > release, or even earlier, because we would probably want to describe that > in the release notes. > Yes, please lets make sure we agree on a status. I think we should also advertise the CMake build system in the relase notes (that was my intention behind the #cmake anchor, however life got in the way before I found time to do this). > So far, only one thing has been discussed and decided: we plan to deprecate > vcxproj in 1.15, and replace it with CMake in 1.16, if all goes well [2, > 3]. > > That leaves a couple of open questions: > > 1) What do we call the current status of CMake (e.g., in the release > notes)? > > 2) Do we want to mark CMake experimental for 1.15 or not? > > My personal opinion on (1) is that we should call CMake "supported", > meaning > that we commit to supporting it in the future and tell people that it's > here > to stay. > > This should encourage maintainers to use it and report issues, and might > help > us keep the pace on its development. We could note somewhere that we know > the current support is not 100% feature-complete, but that it is on our > radar. > At this point, we won't position it as a replacement for anything other > than > vcxproj. > +1 Please note that INSTALL indicate that CMake will be the default build system in 1.16 (it doesn't say which platforms). I wrote this many moons ago because I understood that to be consensus at that time. Lets figure out how to update this before the final release. > > My opinion on (2) follows from the above: I think we should not declare > CMake > experimental, for several reasons: > > - The "experimental" status of a feature can alienate people and prevent > them > from using it. > > - It can reduce the development momentum, because an experimental feature > is > easy to abandon. > > - It can complicate the eventual exit from the experimental status due to > a lack of clear conditions for such exit. > > In short, I think that we should make at least a small commitment about the > CMake's status so that people would actually use it, and so that we would > have reasons to keep supporting and improving it. > +1 I don't think we need to have the CMake build system output "EXPERIMENTAL" anywhere. The bug in [1] was clearly already found but unfortunately not backported to the RC. Cheers, Daniel > > Thoughts? > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/g2997y8ygfr4vg0z5yrr33ojw1ysdbqh > [2]: https://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.15.html#vcproj > [3]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/4bxqms1xrp30jro0v4hydkypzslxjo5v > > > Thanks, > Evgeny Kotkov >
