I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build.
On Jul 25, 2017 8:05 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build. Unless you are developing cmake itself the comparison doesn't hold. A separate list will exclude impromptu opinions that make such discussions fruitful.
On 7/25/2017 9:09 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
On Jul 25, 2017 8:05 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build.
Unless you are developing cmake itself the comparison doesn't hold. A separate list will exclude impromptu opinions that make such discussions fruitful.
My own limited experience with trying to understand and code with CMake has shown me that the support for CMake on the official CMake users list is atrocious. Maybe it is just me, but whatever questions I have ever asked on that mailing list have been completely ignored. So I have, and no doubt will have, many questions I will be asking Boost developers about CMake which I cannot understand from the official CMake documentation. Rather than use the Boost developers mailing list as the place to ask those questions I feel that a separate Boost mailing list would be better, so as not to clutter the developers mailing list with CMake related posts. But I will go with whatever others decide.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Edward Diener wrote:
Rather than use the Boost developers mailing list as the place to ask those questions I feel that a separate Boost mailing list would be better, so as not to clutter the developers mailing list with CMake related posts. But I will go with whatever others decide.
I have always preferred the cross-pollination the main dev list creates, but there's a legitimate disagreement to be had here.
On Jul 25, 2017 8:20 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: On 7/25/2017 9:09 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
On Jul 25, 2017 8:05 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build.
Unless you are developing cmake itself the comparison doesn't hold. A separate list will exclude impromptu opinions that make such discussions fruitful.
My own limited experience with trying to understand and code with CMake has shown me that the support for CMake on the official CMake users list is atrocious. Maybe it is just me, but whatever questions I have ever asked on that mailing list have been completely ignored. So I have, and no doubt will have, many questions I will be asking Boost developers about CMake which I cannot understand from the official CMake documentation. Rather than use the Boost developers mailing list as the place to ask those questions I feel that a separate Boost mailing list would be better, so as not to clutter the developers mailing list with CMake related posts. But I will go with whatever others decide. The same situation happened with the git transition. The questions and answers where informative to everyone. We kept it on the main list but tagged with "[githelp]" so as to allow for either mental or programmatic filtering.
On 7/25/2017 8:26 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
On Jul 25, 2017 8:20 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 9:09 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
On Jul 25, 2017 8:05 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build.
Unless you are developing cmake itself the comparison doesn't hold. A separate list will exclude impromptu opinions that make such discussions fruitful.
My own limited experience with trying to understand and code with CMake has shown me that the support for CMake on the official CMake users list is atrocious. Maybe it is just me, but whatever questions I have ever asked on that mailing list have been completely ignored. So I have, and no doubt will have, many questions I will be asking Boost developers about CMake which I cannot understand from the official CMake documentation. Rather than use the Boost developers mailing list as the place to ask those questions I feel that a separate Boost mailing list would be better, so as not to clutter the developers mailing list with CMake related posts. But I will go with whatever others decide.
The same situation happened with the git transition. The questions and answers where informative to everyone. We kept it on the main list but tagged with "[githelp]" so as to allow for either mental or programmatic filtering.
I think a cmake tag on the main list is more beneficial to all, and will inform a larger audience.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial,
Just my opinion but I think a separate mailing list guarantees that there will be no external participation, and it will likely attenuate internal participation. We've already seen some brave users step up and post for the first time on the dev list voicing their desire to assist with a cmake integration, I doubt we will hear those voices on the boost-cmake list.
Edward Diener wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial,
Already exists: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
On 7/25/2017 9:14 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial,
Already exists: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
I agree that mailing list exists, but seems to refer to efforts at a version of CMake for Boost some 8 years ago.
participants (5)
-
Edward Diener -
Peter Dimov -
Rene Rivera -
Robert -
Vinnie Falco