<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 04/25/2016 02:29 PM, Craig Scott wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+dygYkijvJgkMcS0Z_9snNj5+OFmFAtFs7VgG_VgC9YO4_itA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><font size="2"><span
style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I personally have
found myself having to look up to his sort of version info a
lot lately. It sounds like others do too. </span></font>Perhaps a
more sustainable approach would be to include the version
details in the CMAKE docs themselves. For each command, module,
variable, etc. it's documentation could state the version it was
added. Some may warrant further info for version(s) where
significant changes were made (eg keywords added to a command).
Realistically, it would have to be done progressively and
obviously with agreement from the Kitware side. It would only work
if it became part of the change process whereby any new features
or changes must include such version details. It would be
interesting to hear what Kitware think of the idea. Any chance?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I've also made use of such information from time to time but I think
it has been the exception and it doesn't normally come up during my
regular development workflow.<br>
<br>
I assume for most projects there is a single
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION).<br>
Which means to see what is and what isn't available I only have to
check that specific version's documentation.<br>
<br>
I am curious as to what kind of use case results in having to
require cross-version information as provided by the compatibility
matrix "a lot".<br>
<br>
Nils<br>
</body>
</html>