On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:17:32 -0700 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I think what I'm suggesting is not all that different from this, except > > that I'd suspect "next" would not get enough exposure. So in my mind > > merging to master is not so much "hooray, we now have visual studio > > support" but rather the first step in getting data. But we'd have to be > > very clear about how the project regards the cmake support: it's there > > for now, you're encouraged to play with it, but don't be upset if it > > needs some coaxing to behave like the normal Makefile or if it goes away > > in the future. > > I think you said almost everything I would have said. > > If we were to adopt it as an experiment, hoping to gain exposure, > nothing above 'master' (or tagged releases) won't work. And once a > thing is in 'master', users will ignore the "this is merely an > experiment" warning and expect it to be fully functional and usable. > > Given the observation in the thread that it would take a fairly > recent version to benefit platform-agnostic usability features, I > did not get an impression that it is ready to be anywhere near that, > not even ready for 'next'. It is *not* like "Sibi's patches were > bad but they can become ready with further polishing". The > impression I got was that the large part of why it is not ready is > because it needs time for larger set of distros to adopt more recent > versions of cmake. > Why do you need distros to adopt more recent versions of cmake? The cmake support is mainly for VS and you can install current version of cmake with VS, there is no distro there. It can also work on distros with recent cmake but that's not really the goal so it's not a problem if many distros don't work. Thanks Michal
