On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/2/6 David Cole :
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>> 2012/2/1 David Cole :
There's no rush here. We won't be reviewing your changes again until
next Tuesday at this point...
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I
2012/2/6 David Cole :
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>> 2012/2/1 David Cole :
>>>
>>> There's no rush here. We won't be reviewing your changes again until
>>> next Tuesday at this point...
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I did push the work and the branch a little further yesterday.
>>
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/2/1 David Cole :
>>
>> There's no rush here. We won't be reviewing your changes again until
>> next Tuesday at this point...
>
> Hi all,
>
> I did push the work and the branch a little further yesterday.
> I didn't get any big red on the d
2012/2/1 David Cole :
>
> There's no rush here. We won't be reviewing your changes again until
> next Tuesday at this point...
Hi all,
I did push the work and the branch a little further yesterday.
I didn't get any big red on the dashboard this time and I think
it was worth going a little further
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/2/1 Eric Noulard :
>> 2012/2/1 David Cole :
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 23:39:30 schrieb Eric Noulard:
> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
> > Eric Noulard wrote:
> >>
2012/2/1 Eric Noulard :
> 2012/2/1 David Cole :
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 23:39:30 schrieb Eric Noulard:
2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
> Eric Noulard wrote:
>> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>> >> Should be fixed and pus
2012/2/1 David Cole :
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 23:39:30 schrieb Eric Noulard:
>>> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>>> > Eric Noulard wrote:
>>> >> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>>> >> >> Should be fixed and pushed.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Merge t
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 23:39:30 schrieb Eric Noulard:
>> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>> > Eric Noulard wrote:
>> >> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>> >> >> Should be fixed and pushed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Merge topic 'ImproveCPackDoc-reloaded'
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 23:39:30 schrieb Eric Noulard:
> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
> > Eric Noulard wrote:
> >> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
> >> >> Should be fixed and pushed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Merge topic 'ImproveCPackDoc-reloaded' into next
> >> >>
> >> >> cc4ac32 Calm down compiler warning
Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Eric Noulard :
> > 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
> >>> Ok Agreed.
> >>> Just merged the branch to next.
> >>
> >> Just spotted a bug in it:
> >>
> >> @@ -559,6 +511,8 @@ bool cmDocumentation::CreateSingleModule(const char*
> >> fname,
> >> {
> >> if(line.size(
2012/1/31 Eric Noulard :
> 2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>>> Ok Agreed.
>>> Just merged the branch to next.
>>
>> Just spotted a bug in it:
>>
>> @@ -559,6 +511,8 @@ bool cmDocumentation::CreateSingleModule(const char*
>> fname,
>> {
>> if(line.size() && line[0] == '#')
>> {
>> + /*
2012/1/31 Rolf Eike Beer :
>> Ok Agreed.
>> Just merged the branch to next.
>
> Just spotted a bug in it:
>
> @@ -559,6 +511,8 @@ bool cmDocumentation::CreateSingleModule(const char*
> fname,
> {
> if(line.size() && line[0] == '#')
> {
> + /* line beginnings with ## are mark-up i
> Ok Agreed.
> Just merged the branch to next.
Just spotted a bug in it:
@@ -559,6 +511,8 @@ bool cmDocumentation::CreateSingleModule(const char*
fname,
{
if(line.size() && line[0] == '#')
{
+ /* line beginnings with ## are mark-up ignore them */
+ if (line[1] == '#') c
2012/1/31 Brad King :
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>> 2012/1/25 Brad King :
>>> I'd rather switch to a real documentation engine like asciidoc than
>>> implement all those markup capabilities. We'd need one that can handle
>>> literate programming for .cmake modules thou
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/1/25 Brad King :
>> I'd rather switch to a real documentation engine like asciidoc than
>> implement all those markup capabilities. We'd need one that can handle
>> literate programming for .cmake modules though.
>
> Do you mean that I s
2012/1/25 Brad King :
> On 1/25/2012 3:20 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> So with my proposal you can perfectly document a script in the middle
>> of the file or as usual just in front of the concerned
>> macro/function/var. This may be easier for doc maintenance because
>> the function/macro would b
2012/1/25 Alexander Neundorf :
> On Wednesday 25 January 2012, Eric Noulard wrote:
>
> cmake already supports CMAKE_MODULE_PATH for generating help, e.g. like this:
> $ cmake -DCMAKE_MODULE_PATH=$HOME/src/kdelibs/cmake/modules/ --help-custom-
> modules
>
> This generates docs for all cmake files i
On Wednesday 25 January 2012, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/1/25 Brad King :
> > On 1/24/2012 5:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> >> cmake --help-module CPackComponent
> >> or any other (untouched module)
> >> cmake --help-module FindQt4
> >>
> >> you'll see that the extra space are there as well.
> >> So
On 1/25/2012 3:20 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
So with my proposal you can perfectly document a script in the middle
of the file or as usual just in front of the concerned
macro/function/var. This may be easier for doc maintenance because
the function/macro would be closer to its doc.
Nice.
My ide
2012/1/25 Brad King :
> On 1/24/2012 5:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> cmake --help-module CPackComponent
>> or any other (untouched module)
>> cmake --help-module FindQt4
>>
>> you'll see that the extra space are there as well.
>> So yes there is too much space, but this is not due to
>> my curre
On 1/24/2012 5:50 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
cmake --help-module CPackComponent
or any other (untouched module)
cmake --help-module FindQt4
you'll see that the extra space are there as well.
So yes there is too much space, but this is not due to
my current proposal, it was there before.
We can hand
2012/1/24 Brad King :
> On 1/22/2012 7:58 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> 2012/1/3 Eric Noulard:
>>>
>>> back to cleaner way of work.
>>
>>
>> I did update and clean-up my previous attempt to ease documentation for
>> CPack.
>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
>
> Thanks for working on
On 1/22/2012 7:58 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
2012/1/3 Eric Noulard:
back to cleaner way of work.
I did update and clean-up my previous attempt to ease documentation for CPack.
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
Thanks for working on this.
the new up-to-date branch is "stage/Impro
2012/1/3 Eric Noulard :
> back to cleaner way of work.
I did update and clean-up my previous attempt to ease documentation
for CPack.
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
the new up-to-date branch is "stage/ImproveCPackDoc-reloaded"
I'd rather wait for feedback before merging this t
2012/1/3 Eric Noulard :
>
> I did remove old ImproveCPackDoc from stage.
> I did remove old CMake-completion-improvement from stage as well
> and I'll push something clean without reference to potential cpack enhancement
> in a new topic.
Done as well:
Merge topic 'CMake-bash-completion-enhance' i
2012/1/3 Brad King :
> On 1/3/2012 11:45 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> this is due to the fact I did already merge it
>> (the beginning of the old stage/ImproveCPackDoc)
>> to next before 2.8.7 in the hope that it would be included in 2.8.7:
>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067#c2779
On 1/3/2012 11:45 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
this is due to the fact I did already merge it
(the beginning of the old stage/ImproveCPackDoc)
to next before 2.8.7 in the hope that it would be included in 2.8.7:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067#c27793
It was dropped because "ImproveCP
2012/1/3 Brad King :
> On 1/3/2012 11:03 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> stage/ImproveCPackDoc-part1
>> contains changes that do not add features but document existing ones.
>
>
> This one looks good. Please merge to next.
It does not merge without conflict:
d2c9626 Document undocumented (but ex
On 1/3/2012 11:03 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
stage/ImproveCPackDoc-part1
contains changes that do not add features but document existing ones.
This one looks good. Please merge to next.
stage/CMake-completion-improvement
contains the completion update.
This can be merged to next/maste
2012/1/3 Eric Noulard :
> 2012/1/3 Brad King :
>> On 1/2/2012 7:43 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>>
>>> I try to push forward the feature request:
>>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Anybody have some time to try this?
>>> I'd like to have some feedback before going o
2012/1/3 Brad King :
> On 1/2/2012 7:43 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>>
>> I try to push forward the feature request:
>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
>
> [snip]
>
>> Anybody have some time to try this?
>> I'd like to have some feedback before going on.
>>
>> The branch is stage/Improv
On 1/2/2012 7:43 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
I try to push forward the feature request:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
[snip]
Anybody have some time to try this?
I'd like to have some feedback before going on.
The branch is stage/ImproveCPackDoc.
Please factor out the completion
Hi All,
I try to push forward the feature request:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067
I have something working for
cpack --help-command
and
cpack --help-variables
for which the documentation are automatically extracted from concerned
*.cmake files,
namely;
CPack.cmake
CPackComponen
33 matches
Mail list logo
