[cmake-developers] target_include_directories branch in stage

[Stephen Kelly]

David Cole wrote:
> 
> I, for one, would really like to see per-target include directories in
> 2.8.7, even without per-config support to start with. Then, add the
> per-config support / new generator expressions in a later release.
> 

That seems unlikely to happen. If RC1 is Wednesday, it would have to be 
clean on the dashboard by then, which means cleanup of issues reported by 
the nightlies on Tuesday, which means putting it in next on Monday in order 
to get the nightlies generated.

I've pushed the branch to my gitorious clone again.

https://gitorious.org/~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake

The top two commits need to be reviewed and have real fixes decided and 
written for them. Should the memoization be removed? What does cmMakeDepends 
do? Note that if the goal is to merge this into next on Monday, there is 
little point explaining this to me and asking me to make the necessary 
changes. That would be too inefficient. git reset HEAD^^ and doing the fixes 
would be better.

Additionally, the generators for XCode and VisualStudio don't build in the 
branch (though I haven't tried) because I changed the signature of 
LocalGenerator::GetIncludeDirectories. Again, that would have to be fixed by 
someone with direct access to those platforms and/or generators.

Finally, the Eclipse generator builds, and all tests pass, which means 
mostly that I don't know how to test it. I didn't port it away from 
cmMakefile::GetIncludeDirectories, and yet the (updated) IncludeDirectories 
test passes. I expected the test to fail. To run the test I did:

mkdir eclipse_gen && cd eclipse_gen
cmake .. -G "Eclipse CDT4 - Unix Makefiles" && make
./bin/ctest

Again, asking me to fix these issues would be too inefficient because I 
don't have direct access to the platforms, am unfamiliar with what 
cmMakeDepend.cxx or the memoization should be doing, and don't know enough 
about the eclipse generator to fix it. 

All that would have to be done tomorrow in order to make the RC and I would 
not be able to make that happen. 

Given that this feedback didn't happen last week, people who can give it 
don't likely have time on Monday either.

So the options are probably delay the RC (which wouldn't make me any more 
capable of fixing the remaining issues anyway. It would still need $Your 
help) or defer the feature.

Thanks,

Steve.