<div>Hi Bill,</div><div><br></div><div>Very pleased to hear it went so smoothly - I aim to please. I removed the $ symbols so that you can just paste the entire block. We have been using something very similar in Titan for quite some time with quite a few Windows developers too (usually the toughest to please).</div>
<div><br></div><div>If all looks good, I will be adding a very similar check in ParaView tomorrow morning too.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Marcus</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Bill Lorensen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill.lorensen@gmail.com">bill.lorensen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Marcus,<br>
<br>
FYI: I just cloned VTK into a fresh directory. Ran cmake and it<br>
complained. I pasted the instructions into my shell, reran cmake and<br>
all went well.<br>
<br>
It passed the "Bill Test", at least on linux,<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I pressed the button, and pushed this change into VTK master. I was going to<br>
> check the dashboards and see what happens. I can push a very similar change<br>
> into ParaView, but it just struck me that this has only been raised on the<br>
> VTK developer list.<br>
> I tried to make the instructions as explicit as possible for users and<br>
> developers. Please let me know if you see any problems.<br>
> Marcus<br>
> --<br>
> Marcus D. Hanwell, Ph.D.<br>
> R&D Engineer, Kitware Inc.<br>
> (518) 881-4937<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Moreland, Kenneth <<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> To me, the submodule update in a safe area is completely independent of<br>
>> installing hooks. Regardless of whether or not you enable hooks, you have<br>
>> to do something to get the internal submodule clones. Once you’ve done that<br>
>> something, the hooks will be available in the VTK submodule.<br>
>><br>
>> So the hooks should be locally available for both the ParaView and VTK<br>
>> clones even in a safe area. Why do we need special hook-install handling<br>
>> then?<br>
>><br>
>> -Ken<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 7/1/10 8:10 AM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> You are both right, the hooks are already in any clone, and I would use<br>
>> origin. If you leave the VTK submodule pointing at our servers, then how do<br>
>> you handle git submodule update for ParaView? If you are not handling that,<br>
>> then I would assume VTK is on a (no branch) and not pulling master, nor<br>
>> being actively developed?<br>
>><br>
>> VTK is aware of its inclusion in a ParaView build, and so some special<br>
>> handling could be put in place. I think we could actually instruct it to use<br>
>> the ParaView hooks by going up another directory. Alternatively you could<br>
>> set the flag to disable hooks checks in VTK, but not ParaView. To<br>
>> permanently disable the hooks check in a clone you could also touch<br>
>> .git/hooks/.git/config, this would make the test pass in that particular<br>
>> clone.<br>
>><br>
>> Marcus<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Stephane PLOIX <<a href="mailto:stephane.ploix@edf.fr">stephane.ploix@edf.fr</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> True if the solution proposed by Marcus is to use the "origin" from git to<br>
>> get the hooks. This is not the case for the submodules for instance : by<br>
>> default, they point to kitware's native repos, and have to be reconfigured<br>
>> to point to the internals clones with commands like<br>
>> >>>git config submodule.VTK.url git://my-internal-VTK-clone<br>
>> It would be nice if we could simply clone the main paraview repo and get a<br>
>> fully functionnal mirror with everything self-contained : submodules, hooks,<br>
>> etc... instead of having to have special commands for each and every new git<br>
>> functionnality.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This whole “safe” area business should be a nonissue. If you have cloned<br>
>> the main repository from Kitware, you get a copy of the hooks branch in your<br>
>> local repository along with the other branches. Since the data is taken<br>
>> from your local repository, no network access should be necessary and the<br>
>> instructions should not change for a safe area, right?<br>
>><br>
>> -Ken<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 7/1/10 1:46 AM, "Stephane PLOIX" <<a href="mailto:stephane.ploix@edf.fr">stephane.ploix@edf.fr</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://stephane.ploix" target="_blank">http://stephane.ploix</a>@<a href="http://edf.fr" target="_blank">edf.fr</a>> > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am exactly in the case described by Berk, but I would like to push the<br>
>> point further. Inside the "safe area", we have replicated all the<br>
>> testing/dashboard mechanism, and it would be nice if the proposed mechanism<br>
>> could be configured so that the instructions and redirection to download the<br>
>> hooks can be modified, instead of only having a solution to turn it off.<br>
>> This way, any developer inside the safe area will have to use the hooks as<br>
>> they should, without having to go out of the safe area.<br>
>><br>
>> Stephane<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Stephane PLOIX<br>
>> Pilote Opérationnel - Visualisation scientifique<br>
>> EDF - R&D<br>
>> SINETICS<br>
>> 1, Av du Général de Gaulle<br>
>> 92140 Clamart<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:stephane.ploix@edf.fr">stephane.ploix@edf.fr</a> <<a href="http://stephane.ploix" target="_blank">http://stephane.ploix</a>@<a href="http://edf.fr" target="_blank">edf.fr</a>><br>
>> Tél. : +33 (0) 1 47 65 51 10<br>
>> Un geste simple pour l'environnement, n'imprimez ce message que si vous<br>
>> en avez l'utilité.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>><br>
>> Envoyé par : <a href="mailto:vtk-developers-bounces@vtk.org">vtk-developers-bounces@vtk.org</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://vtk-developers-bounces" target="_blank">http://vtk-developers-bounces</a>@<a href="http://vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk.org</a>> 30/06/2010 20:13<br>
>> A<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:berk.geveci@kitware.com">berk.geveci@kitware.com</a> <<a href="http://berk.geveci" target="_blank">http://berk.geveci</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>><br>
>> cc<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a> <<a href="http://vtk-developers" target="_blank">http://vtk-developers</a>@<a href="http://vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk.org</a>> , <a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov" target="_blank">sandia.gov</a>><br>
>> Objet<br>
>><br>
>> Re: [vtk-developers] Auto install git hooks<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Berk Geveci <<a href="mailto:berk.geveci@kitware.com">berk.geveci@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://berk.geveci" target="_blank">http://berk.geveci</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:berk.geveci@kitware.com">berk.geveci@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:berk.geveci@kitware.com">berk.geveci@kitware.com</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>> I am joining this argument a bit late so I apologize if I misunderstand.<br>
>><br>
>> The solution that Marcus et al. are proposing will have no effect if<br>
>> someone is building from a source that does not contain a .git directory,<br>
>> correct? If not, it should be. Those have no interest in developing<br>
>> VTK/ParaView/ITK/CMake whatever should not clone the git repository.<br>
>> Instead, they should download a tarball/zip. Keep in mind that<br>
>> github/gitorious etc. all have the ability of generating an archive of the<br>
>> repository at any point in time. We should encourage users to use it rather<br>
>> than clone the git repo (which requires installing git and all). Similarly,<br>
>> if a developer is to send a user a snapshot, that developer should not<br>
>> include the .git directory in that snapshot.<br>
>><br>
>> If it is not a clone, then no checks are performed. So if the user<br>
>> downloads a tarball (or otherwise removes the .git/config in the root source<br>
>> directory), then they will never see the error.<br>
>><br>
>> My biggest concern is for developers that clone a repo and then take it to<br>
>> a safe area to build. At that point, they will not have access to network.<br>
>> So we should have a way to bypass anything that requires network access.<br>
>><br>
>> There is an option, the can be set in the CMake cache to skip the check.<br>
>> In Titan it is called Titan_IGNORE_HOOKS, defaults to off but if set to on<br>
>> bypasses the hooks check.<br>
>><br>
>> Marcus<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Wes Turner <<a href="mailto:wes.turner@kitware.com">wes.turner@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://wes.turner" target="_blank">http://wes.turner</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:wes.turner@kitware.com">wes.turner@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:wes.turner@kitware.com">wes.turner@kitware.com</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>> I will continue to respectfully disagree. Not every user has the ability<br>
>> to be a developer. Intentionally breaking the build process for exactly<br>
>> those people who will never make a checkin and who are most likely to drop<br>
>> use of the toolkit when they it gets too complex or they get annoyed seems<br>
>> like a bad idea.<br>
>><br>
>> That said, I had my say and will follow the madding crowd. :-)<br>
>><br>
>> - Wes<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Moreland, Kenneth <<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov" target="_blank">sandia.gov</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>> If I may, I’ll repeat David’s sentiments a bit more gently.<br>
>><br>
>> You would get around this problem if you sent to your customer an archive<br>
>> instead of a git url. Instructing your customer (as you describe him/her)<br>
>> to fetch the latest snapshot from the archive is a bad idea all around.<br>
>> First, it adds further complication to the build process (get git and learn<br>
>> it well enough to clone a repo), which you said yourself is already too<br>
>> onerous. Second, it invites the inevitable problem that your customer will<br>
>> get a version of VTK that is different than yours and with something<br>
>> committed that breaks your software.<br>
>><br>
>> Will this unnecessarily effect someone somewhere? I will concede that it<br>
>> probably will, but it will be a small percentage of all VTK users and,<br>
>> amortized amongst us all, will save much more time than will be lost.<br>
>><br>
>> -Ken<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 6/30/10 8:49 AM, "David Cole" <<a href="mailto:david.cole@kitware.com">david.cole@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://david.cole" target="_blank">http://david.cole</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <<a href="http://david.cole" target="_blank">http://david.cole</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://david.cole" target="_blank">http://david.cole</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> The point here is:<br>
>> - anybody using the VTK git repository should have the hooks installed<br>
>> locally, so that commits they make have a snowball's chance of being<br>
>> merge-able into the main repo<br>
>> - if they don't have the hooks installed, then when they run cmake on<br>
>> VTK's CMakeLists.txt file, it should:<br>
>> -- automatically install the hooks for you if possible<br>
>> or<br>
>> -- be a fatal configure time error with instructions on how to install<br>
>> the hooks<br>
>><br>
>> Period. If I were doing this, there wouldn't even be an option to turn it<br>
>> off. Marcus is being more than generous here even providing that level of<br>
>> control.<br>
>><br>
>> If they can't handle that, they shouldn't be using VTK via git. They<br>
>> should stick to releases / tarballs that do not have a .git repo in the<br>
>> tree.<br>
>><br>
>> There's no such thing as a "user" of a library. They're developers. They<br>
>> can handle installing hooks.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Just my opinion,<br>
>> David C.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Wes Turner <<a href="mailto:wes.turner@kitware.com">wes.turner@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://wes.turner" target="_blank">http://wes.turner</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <<a href="http://wes.turner" target="_blank">http://wes.turner</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://wes.turner" target="_blank">http://wes.turner</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>> How much more complicated does this make the initial build process for a<br>
>> naive user who checked out VTK and just wants to compile/run it? Every time<br>
>> I send code to a customer, I invariably end up on a t-con where I need to<br>
>> walk them through the process of building the toolkits. This holds even for<br>
>> otherwise technologically savvy people. The frustration level on their end<br>
>> can be quite high, even when we prime them for this possibility. Similarly,<br>
>> we got blasted on this in a paper submission where the reviewer just wasn't<br>
>> willing to try out the Lesion Sizing Toolkit because the install/build<br>
>> procedures for ITK/LSTK were too high. If the intent here is to make anyone<br>
>> who downloads VTK via git jump through another set of hoops to get up and<br>
>> running, then I think it is a bad idea. I am happy explaining away<br>
>> warnings, however, so making it a warning would be fine. I would also be<br>
>> fine with adding something in for people who claim up front that they want<br>
>> to upload back to the repository.<br>
>><br>
>> - Wes<br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Moreland, Kenneth <<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov" target="_blank">sandia.gov</a>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a>> > > wrote:<br>
>> That sounds pretty good to me.<br>
>><br>
>> -Ken<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 6/29/10 2:27 PM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > > > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> So, I was thinking about this over the weekend, and talked to Brad King.<br>
>> There is an environment variable that is set by CTest when it drives the<br>
>> build. I can check if that variable is defined, and know that CTest is<br>
>> driving the build.<br>
>><br>
>> If I did that then when a user first configures VTK CMake will print an<br>
>> error with copy/paste instructions to check out the local hooks (along with<br>
>> a link to the wiki). They can set a CMake cache variable to ignore the hooks<br>
>> to get past it if they wish. If you are not in a git checkout the whole<br>
>> process is skipped.<br>
>><br>
>> If CTest invoked the configure then the environment variable is set, and<br>
>> so the error is not raised - negating the need to set a cache variable on<br>
>> all of the dashboard machines. The only assumption is that CTest is driving<br>
>> the build, which I think is reasonable. I tested the logic out in Titan and<br>
>> it looks good.<br>
>><br>
>> Does this cover all of your requirements reasonably? I will be checking<br>
>> this code into Titan as I think it is an improvement on what we had there<br>
>> too. I would be happy to check the relevant portion into VTK.<br>
>><br>
>> Marcus<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Moreland, Kenneth <<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov" target="_blank">sandia.gov</a>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a>> > <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov" target="_blank">sandia.gov</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://kmorel" target="_blank">http://kmorel</a>@<a href="http://sandia.gov/" target="_blank">sandia.gov/</a>> > > > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> In short, a pushurl is not a good indication of whether commits will be<br>
>> made or whether those commits will eventually be pushed to the main<br>
>> repository.<br>
>><br>
>> -Ken<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 6/17/10 2:46 PM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > > <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com" target="_blank">kitware.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://marcus.hanwell" target="_blank">http://marcus.hanwell</a>@<a href="http://kitware.com/" target="_blank">kitware.com/</a>> > > > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Clinton Stimpson <<a href="mailto:clinton@elemtech.com">clinton@elemtech.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com" target="_blank">elemtech.com</a>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a>> > <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com" target="_blank">elemtech.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a>> > > <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com" target="_blank">elemtech.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://clinton" target="_blank">http://clinton</a>@<a href="http://elemtech.com/" target="_blank">elemtech.com/</a>> > > > wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Can you key off the existence of a pushurl?<br>
>> But I also wonder how this would keep the hooks updated?<br>
>><br>
>> We could possibly be clever and do a little regex to check for the git@<br>
>> form of the url/pushurl. I hadn't considered being that sneaky, but it sound<br>
>> like a viable approach and would ease the dashboard pain.<br>
>><br>
>> Marcus<br>
>><br>
>> On Thursday, June 17, 2010 02:13:37 pm Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:<br>
>> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Moreland, Kenneth<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov">kmorel@sandia.gov</a>>wrote:<br>
>> > > That’s a good point about CMake modifying the source tree, but I<br>
>> > > think<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > this is one of those cases we should let the rule slide. In this case<br>
>> > > we<br>
>> > > are installing what, IMHO, git should be pulling for us. Although the<br>
>> > > Wiki says its optional, it really should be enforced for anyone who<br>
>> > > makes any commit to any repository.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > We came to a similar conclusion in Titan, but I am not sure about<br>
>> > letting<br>
>> > the rule slide. This is new territory though, and it is just my take<br>
>> ><br>
>> > > I’m less thrilled about the “error if not installed” option because it<br>
>> > > still pushes the responsibility back on every developer. It could<br>
>> > > also<br>
>> > > wreck havoc on the dashboards as there will be a delay in getting<br>
>> > > someone<br>
>> > > to fix the warning. But if that is the general consensus, it’s way<br>
>> > > better than what we have now, which is nothing. If that is the path<br>
>> > > we<br>
>> > > choose to<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > follow, then I would hope that the following could be be features:<br>
>> > > - CMake be very insistent about installing the hooks. It should<br>
>> > > not<br>
>> > > be easy to miss or ignore the error.<br>
>> > > - The error should give clear instructions on how to install the<br>
>> > > hooks.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > It’s annoying to have to find it in the Wiki every time.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > - The check should also look for any updates to the hooks in<br>
>> > > addition<br>
>> > > to just seeing if they are installed. One of the problems I run<br>
>> > > into<br>
>> > > is that even though I try to be diligent about installing hooks, I<br>
>> > > miss changes pushed to the repository.<br>
>> > > - The check should turn itself off if not run in a git repository.<br>
>> > > A<br>
>> > > user who downloaded the source from the web would never be able to<br>
>> > > satisfy the requirement.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The checks in Titan have all but the third feature. That would be a<br>
>> > valuable general addition though, and I think there is some code<br>
>> > floating<br>
>> > around that could help us to accomplish this. It would be good to hear<br>
>> > how<br>
>> > others feel about this, but we should certainly be making these things<br>
>> > as<br>
>> > easy as possible for our developers. I will see what our software<br>
>> > process<br>
>> > type people think - Brad, Dave, Bill?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Marcus<br>
>> > --<br>
>> > Marcus D. Hanwell, Ph.D.<br>
>> > R&D Engineer, Kitware Inc.<br>
>> > (518) 881-4937<br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="im">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Powered by <a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">www.kitware.com</a><br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at<br>
> <a href="http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html</a><br>
><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:<br>
> <a href="http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers" target="_blank">http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>