On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 02:55:52PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > Hi Patrick > > On 25/09/2024 07:04, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 02:02:34AM -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote: > > > > > I'm probably biased, but some of these failure modes are *weird*. And > > > they basically never require the CMakeLists.txt to do something > > > considered non-idiomatic in order to trigger the issue. > > > > All of this is very valuable data to make my case for Meson instead of > > CMake. Appreciated, thanks! > > One thing to bear in mind is why our CMakeLists.txt was introduced in the > first place [1]. Visual Studio's CMake integration means that so long as > git-for-windows is installed building git is simply a case of clicking on a > button, there is no need to install extra software or plugins. I'm not sure > the same is true for meson and I don't think we want to end up supporting > both. > > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2004251354390.18039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Fair enough. The final discussion about which build system to pick is of course still to be had. Having worked with both CMake and Meson quite a bit in the past I'm strongly in favor of Meson myself, and so I will try to make a strong case for it. But points like this of course need to be considered when we have the discussion. The nice thing is that we'll then have all serious contenders (that I am aware of) wired up, even though the level of support will be different across them. But it should allow folks to come to a better understanding of what they will be signing up for. In any case, I'm now in a state where the Meson-based build works and tests just fine, except for t0200, which requires a bit more plumbing to set up xgettext infra. Once I'm done with that I'll go off and test with both macOS and Windows to check how the experience is over there. I hope to be done with that somewhen next week, at which point I'll send things to the mailing list. Patrick
