[Development] Proposing CMake as build tool for Qt 6

[Palaraja, Kavindra]

That's good to hear. I understand that there will be two levels of documentation:

- CMake itself on their side
- Qt's CMake related content; like the macros you mention

Regarding the possibly-internal bits, I would vote for having them documented still -- even if there's a note or a disclaimer explaining their status. This is a good way for your team to maintain the messaging; instead of having random blog posts circulating online about people's experiments on these internal macros. Those would then deviate from the official messaging. Additionally, I believe some of my colleagues, who are module maintainers outside of The Qt Company, could use this information.

Sure, I'll try to help with reviews when I have some time.

Thanks for your response,
Kavindra.

On 06.06.19, 16:00, "Kai Köhne" <Kai.Koehne at qt.io> wrote:



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of
    > Palaraja, Kavindra
    > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:38 PM
    > To: development at qt-project.org
    > Subject: Re: [Development] Proposing CMake as build tool for Qt 6
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Just curious, do you have a link to what the draft documentation for CMake
    > looks like?

    CMake has quite extensive documentation: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/

    > qmake's documentation has always been an afterthought. The documentation
    > equivalent for CMake should be better than that – at the very least, it
    > shouldn’t result in another https://wiki.qt.io/Undocumented_QMake and
    > such.

    I think this is the case 😊 We're also gradually improving the documentation of CMake macros that Qt provides, see https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/topic:%22cmake_transition%22 (reviews welcome btw).

    Now there will still be CMake macros & functions that are only used when building Qt itself (-> are internal). I don't think it makes sense yet to document them, because they're still in flux. But once things stabilize it would be IMO a good move to at least provide overview documentation.

    Regards

    Kai



________________________________

This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or copies thereof from your system. Thank you.