[CMake] Documentation strategy

[Robert J. Hansen]

Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Counting on people to buy books to do evaluations is bad strategy.

I'm not talking strategy.  I'm simply saying that your broad claim that
people will not buy a book to do an evaluation may not reflect reality,
especially given that any engineering shop worth the name will have a
budget for book purchases.

> will, when prodded by peers.  If you're the only guy with the CMake
> book, and you're waiting for it, and it's about your schedule and your
> ways of masking the shipping delay, and you being an "assigned" person
> to deal with it in the 1st place, there are lotsa extra barriers.

I can't parse this sentence.

> You want lotsa people to look at CMake, or just a few people organized
> enough to buy a book?

What I want is to make efficient use of my time.  I did so by buying the
book.

>>> The projects that see CMake as a slam dunk, are the ones that did an
>>> Autoconf build for the Unix stuff, and also had to maintain some
>>> horrible hand rolled Visual Studio build, typically with .BAT files.
>>
>> At the time KDE converted to CMake it was a UNIX-only project, and they
>> considered CMake to be a slam dunk.
> 
> No, they were planning to port huge chunks of libraries to Windows.

Yes, exactly.  Please note that "planning to port huge chunks of
libraries to Windows" means they were not yet ported to Windows.  It was
a UNIX-only project.  They were not maintaining "horrible hand rolled
Visual Studio builds".

Again, I think you are arguing too broadly.