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

[Scott, W Alan]

Two thoughts:
* Seems to me there is source level information (builds, version numbers, supporting libraries, etc.).  This can live either place.  Second, there is non source/executable level info, such as tutorials, python script snippets, etc.  This should live in a wiki.
* I believe the base issue I brought up is that we have information held in multiple locations, and it gets out of date.  I don't see how moving documentation into the code would make it any more likely to be updated.

No matter where it is located, we probably need a procedure for releases, that includes updating the version number documentation.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Utkarsh Ayachit [mailto:utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:15 AM
To: Scott, W Alan
Cc: David E DeMarle; paraview-developers at paraview.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Paraview-developers] CMake Version

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#Prerequisite
>>> s
>>>
>>> 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#Prerequisite
>>> s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>