[Paraview-developers] CMake Version

[David E DeMarle]

Sounds like a good idea to me, AS LONG AS the mechanics of finding and
changing said information is easy to find and described well.


David E DeMarle
Kitware, Inc.
R&D Engineer
21 Corporate Drive
Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662
Phone: 518-881-4909

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Utkarsh Ayachit <
utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/paraview-developers/attachments/20150126/eb3ec7c9/attachment-0001.html>