[Paraview-developers] [EXTERNAL] Re: CMake Version

[Utkarsh Ayachit]

Alan,

Yes, good point. Wikis should still have a place to store such
resources. Maybe the Wiki won't disappear entirely, but will stop
being "the" resource for all documentation. It should probably be a
place for "additional documentation and resources" with all the
essential ones moving to the source.

Utkarsh

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Scott, W Alan <wascott at sandia.gov> wrote:
> The downside of dropping the wikis is that they hold a lot of information
> that probably would not be found in code.  For instance, the Sandia
> tutorials are found there, along with the SC Tutorials.  We also have
> locations for the configuration files, and my release testing.
>
>
>
> From: David E DeMarle [mailto:dave.demarle at kitware.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:34 AM
> To: Utkarsh Ayachit
> Cc: Scott, W Alan; paraview-developers at paraview.org
>
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Paraview-developers] CMake Version
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>