<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/22/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bill Hoffman</b> <<a href="mailto:bill.hoffman@kitware.com">bill.hoffman@kitware.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Scons has a very nice web page showing projects using it.<br><br>It might be a good model for the CMake pages:
<br><a href="http://www.scons.org/refer.php">http://www.scons.org/refer.php</a><br><br>The format seems to be:<br><br>Project<br>Description of project with optional how long and how<br>they are using CMake.<br><br>[Optional testimonial in italics]
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>This is good "front message" stuff. However, these endorsements lack depth. Contrast this with the Python Success Stories. <a href="http://www.pythonology.com/success">http://www.pythonology.com/success
</a> The writeups on each of these is much longer, and contains operational information that people can actually use to guide their decisions. It's all very fine and well that Person X liked SCons or whatever, but people need depth to gain confidence that it'll work for *them*. The best format would use both the SCons "front message" style and the Pythonology "full story" style.
</div><br> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Brandon Van Every</div>
<div> </div>