On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
Hi, I am currently working on some (initial) text for the Release Notes regarding CMake. I saw the message about it [1] from a few days ago but have only gotten to it now. Are you also working on some text for it? There might be a race condition :-) I'm +1 to call it Supported, rather than Experimental, for Subversion 1.15. The release notes text I'm working on explain that we aim to make the CMake build the default for Windows platforms starting in 1.16, as well as to gradually bring the CMake build to parity with the autotools build. Also I'll explain that, though CMake can be used on other platforms as well, the autotools build will remain the default for all other platforms besides Windows; I think it's important to say this because there has been some pushback regarding CMake from people who are concerned that the autotools build might go away. (There was also a rather lively discussion to that effect on the APR list not too long ago, which some devs here may remember.) So we want everyone to know that the autotools build is not going away. I'll try to get what I have posted to site/staging soon... feel free to edit or overwrite it with your version if you're writing it as well. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mm9od05dxfsfs7jsgtxkfg4r9nor8kjn Thanks, Nathan
