[LLVMdev] [RFC] Raise minimum required CMake version to 3.0

[Chandler Carruth]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> > However, everyone seems to think I'm advocating we never move the CMake
> > version forward. That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is
> that
> > moving the CMake version forward has a cost. Not a huge insurmountable
> cost,
> > but non-zero and I suspect non-trivial cost. As a consequence, I'm
> > suggesting we do so *once we have a use case* (and I don't mean a
> > hypothetical use case, but patches or planned patches) and when the
> merits
> > of that use case make it worthwhile (I suspect they will be).
>
> Well, there is a clear proposal for what it would be used.


I came back into this thread after 10 days of silence to reply to an email
that asked a general question without a specific proposal. I've said I'd be
interested in seeing the specific proposal in almost every email. I don't
want to just assume Chris or anyone else is going to immediately use some
of the many features that were mentioned previously, I'd like to see
something more concrete in terms of "i want to do X now, it needs Y".


> It seems
> counter productive to ask Chris to implement a patch using 3.0
> features first and then get it rejected because we decided that we
> don't want to move to 3.0 after all.


I'm happy for it to be prior to a patch. I've given an example mulitple
times of how this would make more sense to me to evaluate.

I'm sorry you think I'm treating Linux specially. I've tried not to, and
explained why, but it didn't seem to make any difference.

I don't know why we're spending this much time debating whether or not
we're debating something. This entire thread seems a bit silly at this
point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150310/b2e65ca2/attachment.html>