[Paraview-developers] CMake Version

[Utkarsh Ayachit]

I do see a bigger issue that Alan raises, which is a fair one. Wikis
have too much stale text! I keep wondering if we should drop the Wikis
entirely and go to documenting in code so it's easier to maintain. We
already have started documenting things like API changes, etc in the
Doxygen pages[1]. Maybe we should migrate everything there.

The one reason for Wikis is that its easier for external folks to
change. But if we move to github/gitlab workflow soon, people will be
able to edit files and create merge requests on the Web directly as
well. Hence those who are actually keep on editing the documentation
will indeed be able to.

What do folks think?

Utkarsh


[1] http://www.paraview.org/ParaView3/Doc/Nightly/www/cxx-doc/index.html

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM, David E DeMarle
<dave.demarle at kitware.com> wrote:
> We want to document two things.
>
> 1) What version ranges the ParaView source code is compatible with.
> 2) What specific versions were the Kitware binaries built so that people can
> build and distribute plugins that work with them.
>
>
> On Friday, January 23, 2015, Scott, W Alan <wascott at sandia.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> OK, now we are saying that we have two locations that we document what
>> versions of packages we use.  There are actually three, if you include
>> inside the superbuild itself.  I strongly feel that there should be one
>> location that everyone can go to when they want to know what version of
>> packages are to be used.  Currently, these two locations are:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView:Build_And_Install#Prerequisites
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView_Binaries
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> p.s. – not trying to shoot the messenger here – thanks for the reply.  My
>> point is just that we should document the version of what builds with
>> ParaView one place, having gone through weeks of hell building cgns.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Dan Lipsa [mailto:dan.lipsa at kitware.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 8:57 PM
>> To: Scott, W Alan
>> Cc: David E DeMarle; Marcus D. Hanwell; paraview-developers at paraview.org
>> Subject: Re: [Paraview-developers] [EXTERNAL] Re: CMake Version
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView:Build_And_Install#Prerequisites
>>
>>
>>
>> has the correct minimum version required for cmake 2.8.8.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Scott, W Alan <wascott at sandia.gov> wrote:
>>
>> I am hearing that it makes sense to leave current minimum cmake version
>> for VTK.  That is OK with me.  It is also always good to know that you can
>> always use latest/ greatest Cmake.  But, that isn’t true for all packages
>> (and I believe latest Cmake has been incompatible in the past).  Let’s
>> update the ParaView wiki to show what Cmake version is used for the builds?
>> Surprisingly, upgrading Cmake versions isn’t trivial for some of us that
>> build somewhere around a dozen platforms, and I don’t like having to guess
>> what version to use...
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks all!
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Paraview-developers
>> [mailto:paraview-developers-bounces at paraview.org] On Behalf Of David E
>> DeMarle
>> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 8:53 AM
>> To: Marcus D. Hanwell
>> Cc: paraview-developers at paraview.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Paraview-developers] CMake Version
>>
>>
>>
>> If there isn't a compelling reason I think we should remain
>> conservative, and it sounds like there is not in this case (especially
>> for a dependency that is pretty optional for many of our users).
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. One factor in the minimum required decision is what the popular
>> Linux distros have readily on hand.
>>
>>
>>
>> You
>> can generally always use the latest CMake if you choose, but making
>> that the minimum makes it harder for others to compile and use our
>> code (often using the packaged CMake).
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed again. The "faraway" submission in the dependencies track of the
>> vtk dashboard exists to verity that CMake master works for VTK.
>> Unfortunately it didn't submit today so someone needs to shove it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paraview-developers mailing list
>> Paraview-developers at paraview.org
>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Search the list archives at:
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=Paraview-developers
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers
>