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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Tue Mar 10 21:14:14 PDT 2015

Just to rebase things a bit, here is some context.

- This is a 60+ email thread spreading across a month of time.
- I've not read every single email and I don't think it makes sense to
assume the context of the first email applies to the most recent.
- I started replying again in response to a specific question from Chris:

Chandler, do you have any thoughts based on the context in this thread?

Perhaps wrongly, I interpreted this "context" to refer to the recent
trouble encountered by Tobi and others with newer versions of CMake.

I laid out the basis for when I *would* push to raise our minimum cmake
version: when someone would actually like to use a specific feature to make
the build better and can compare the cost of not having that feature with
the (rather small, I agree! just non-zero) cost of requiring getting a
fresh copy of CMake. My belief was and is that this would be an effective
way to help assuage the concerns of those worried about being too
aggressive here.

Maybe Chris is ready to use some features and we can do that right now. The
start of the thread gives one impression, his recent email gave me the
impression otherwise, but he can speak for himself I'm sure. ;]

Maybe Zach is ready to use some features. I'll let him make the case if so.

Maybe everyone is 100% ready to jump to a new version. Cool, I'm all for
that. But when Chris asked me the question, it seemed like the community
had some resistance to newer versions and so I was trying to suggest how to
balance those concerns in a productive  If the community is just in violent
agreement that we should use the latest and greatest, I don't know why
we're still here debating it though.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <
> 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/b1d46eaa/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list