Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Implement CMake build

[Isaac Hier <isaachier@gmail.com>]

Stephan, I totally agree about the advanced options. At first, I left
them as visible options seeing as the Makefile does not comment which
are advanced and which are basic.

In terms of the up-to-dateness, I find it easier to "fast-forward" all
the changes at once without tangling myself in a load of periodic
updates.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 01/24/2018 10:19 PM, Isaac Hier wrote:
>> Thanks for your interest! This patch is based on the cmake-build
>> branch of https://github.com/isaachier/git, but the full history is on
>> the cmake branch (squashed it for easier readability). Hope that
>> helps.
>
> Thanks. I use the cmake branch because I prefer "real" history over one
> huge commit.
>
> And I already love it. Thanks for all the work!
>
> From a first short glance, I wonder if you should mark a lot more
> options as advanced options, like the paths (e.g., SHELL_PATH,
> LESS_PATH, GETTEXT_MSGFMT_EXECUTABLE, etc.) and probably also things
> like GIT_USER_AGENT. If you use a configuration tool like ccmake, you
> see a lot of options and many of them are not relevant to the average user.
>
> I also think some variables have weird names, for example, POLL, PREAD,
> MMAP should be USE_POLL, USE_PREAD, USE_MMAP, respectively... or even
> USE_*_SYSCALL, I don't know.
>
> By the way, regarding up-to-dateness, you are missing these recent
> changes that have been merged to master:
>
>   edb6a17c36 Makefile: NO_OPENSSL=1 should no longer imply BLK_SHA1=1
>   3f824e91c8 t/Makefile: introduce TEST_SHELL_PATH
>
> (which is not surprising)
>
> ~Stephan