<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Steven Velez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sbv1976@gmail.com">sbv1976@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi Robert,<br>
<br>
I reviewed the patch, and I am not sure vsAuxPath should be a<br>
requirement. As I stated earlier, we've gotten the binding to work<br>
acceptably without it and I assume others have as well. Further, some<br>
users may prefer to enter their connection information in to the<br>
perforce dialog on first invocation instead of having to configure the<br>
cmake cache to setup their bindings.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I never said it wouldn't work without AuxPath, I am just stating that it works better with it. AuxPath is where the connection string is placed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Each person that uses CMake is different and I see no reason why AuxPath should not be an available option to the user, especially since I've already done the work of adding it in.</div><div><br></div>
<div>If users want to continuously press "OK" on the perforce connection dialog for every project opened in the solution, that's fine by me but I certainly don't want to deal with that annoying behavior.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">To be clear, I have no objections to adding AuxPath support (not that<br>
my objections count for anything around here). Its that just as it<br>
stands now, if you don't supply it, you won't get any bindings.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can easily make it optional. I was just following the design already in place, which forces all parameters to be required.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Also, you may have better results getting your patch integrated by<br>
opening a defect in cmake's bug tracker and attaching the patch to<br>
that. The preferred patch generation method is also described here:<br>
<a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/cmake@cmake.org/msg36619.html" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/cmake@cmake.org/msg36619.html</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the info!!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
By the way, as I stated in an earlier mail, if you wish to pursue this<br>
further, if you change "C:/Code/work/sandbox" to "..\..\.." where that<br>
path points to "C:\Code\work\sandbox" relative to the target being<br>
bound, you should have better results.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I read your last email but I fail to see the logic behind why a relative path works better than an absolute one. Based on my tests, using an absolute path has not resulted in any prompts to save the solution/projects.</div>
</div>