[PATCH] D77740: [CMake] Add a warning message to prepare the upcoming upgrade to CMake 3.13.4

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ldionne marked an inline comment as done.
ldionne added a comment.

In D77740#1969886 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77740#1969886>, @jyknight wrote:

> I don't think there's any point in delaying until after the 11 release. We just branched LLVM 10. I believe we should make the change between now and the September LLVM 11 release, rather than afterwards.


I'd strongly support that, however can you please mention that in the `llvm-dev` thread? This isn't what we agreed on. I think this might get consensus as well, but I can't really implement a resolution that's different from what has been agreed on the list.

So, as it stands, I'll have to keep the warning as-is except for mentioning an approximate branching date and other minor rewordings.



================
Comment at: llvm/CMakeLists.txt:8
+    "The current CMake version is ${CMAKE_VERSION}. As soon as the release "
+    "branch for LLVM 11.0.0 is created, the minimum version of CMake required "
+    "to build LLVM will become 3.13.4, and using an older CMake will become "
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > This message refers to "internal process" concepts such as creation of a release branch. Can the message be made to be clear for "downstream consumers"?
> I would write "Starting with 11.0, the minimum version of CMake required ...."
@hubert.reinterpretcast 

> This message refers to "internal process" concepts such as creation of a release branch. Can the message be made to be clear for "downstream consumers"?

The reason why I didn't say a date is that I wasn't able to find the (approximate) date at which we'd branch off LLVM 11.0.0. It looks like this is around September, however, so I'll mention that if we keep the warning similar (see other threads).

@mehdi_amini 

> I would write "Starting with 11.0, the minimum version of CMake required ...."

It does read better, however it's not really what we mean. We'd have to say "Starting with 12.0, the minimum ...", which would be clear to downstream users of LLVM, but not to developers who will want to know that we're going to bump as soon as 11.0 is branched, even though 12.0 hasn't been released yet. I guess we could also lie and say "Starting with 11.0, ..." -- this would be clear to developers, and downstream users would think they need to upgrade when they could actually afford to wait one more release (which is probably OK).



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D77740/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D77740