[Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas offray.luna at mutabit.com
Thu Jan 28 08:36:25 EST 2016


For me what monticello has and git not is that is unobtrusive. Yes 
interface is not pretty, but once you have the basics it becomes 
invisible. Not the case with git. Hopefully the DVCS support will have 
the same amount of invisibility. I know that now things are moving, but 
long threads about the integration of git + pharo show the 
responsiveness of the community in one hand and the lot of support it 
needs for working on the other.

Cheers,

Offray

On 26/01/16 13:10, Dimitris Chloupis wrote:
> I love live coding , dynamic language, beautiful syntax and close 
> integration with IDE. But yeah Monticello , I don't get it. I love 
> Pharo and always respect the hard work of others but that does not 
> mean I love every part of it. Same story is Blender , Python and all 
> other tools I use. That ok I don't worry if some parts I don't like. 
> It's what make with the tools you have that matters most.
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 at 19:46, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu 
> <mailto:sven at stfx.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Sometimes I really don't understand what you see in Pharo ...
>
>     > On 26 Jan 2016, at 17:53, Dimitris Chloupis
>     <kilon.alios at gmail.com <mailto:kilon.alios at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > "If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in
>     it."
>     >
>     > why it should ? its a version control system, not a refactoring
>     tool.
>     >
>     > "
>     > When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes,
>     methods, inheritance,
>     > it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form
>     that you wrote them."
>     >
>     > is that Monticello or is that refactoring classes and methods of
>     pharo ? Because the way I see it is like this if you have a
>     refactoring language, a language that can refactor its own code ,
>     that language should be able to take two diffirent pieces of code
>     and not only show you a diff but also show you how your
>     inheritance is affected, your classes even your live state.
>     >
>     > The big question here, from my side is why a version control
>     system should do that ? Refactoring and version controlling for me
>     at least is two very different tasks. I dont also see how a
>     version control system that is self aware refactoring wise when 
>     already have refactoring tools in my IDE, is giving me any
>     advantage me as a user. Most IDEs come with them anyway.
>     >
>     > Its not as if you will use a python IDE, or whatever language
>     you use and the IDE will go "sorry dude I cannot tell you what git
>     did there because it has no refactoring and I am too stupid to use
>     my own refactoring tools". That IDE would belong to the bin. This
>     is why we use specialized Git gui tools, they are not there just
>     to make our screens pretty.
>     >
>     > "Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been
>     done, and was not successful, because you lose something essential
>     by leaving the environment."
>     >
>     > What you lose is the live state which monticello does not store
>     anyway, how could it ? it only stores text files, its actually far
>     more anti-Smalltalk than git is. Because with git you can version
>     control your pharo images or your fuel files than contain the live
>     state or you could export the live state and live code to a binary
>     file. Now try that with monticello. The irony is very large, Git
>     is far more Smalltalk friendly, than Monticello is.
>     >
>     > "The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be
>     seen as an island that needs to integrate with others, there are
>     degrees of openness. Your Blender or Python are islands too, just
>     like SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are
>     easy, some are hard(er). It all depends on your position."
>     >
>     > I completely agree in the end every API ever programm is to a
>     degree an island. No code ever shakes in terror saying "oh my god
>     I need to make my code 100% compatible with whatever is out there"
>     . Its not possible. But the culture of those other languages is
>     "lets keep things close" , "lets make coder's life" easier , "lets
>     keep compatibility and standard/common practices" .
>     >
>     > Smalltalk does not do that because it loves experimentation, the
>     whole smalltalk enviroment  is experimentation heaven playground.
>     Thats great because without it we dont have smalltalk but its also
>     bad.
>     >
>     > "When have you last looked at the source code of git ?"
>     >
>     > Never ? Why should I, I dont even take a look at monticello
>     source code. I tried to improve auto completion and my head kept
>     spinning around and around, 10s of hours still could not figure
>     out the code. I am not smart or knowledgable to judge Monticello
>     on a source code basis. Maybe source code wise, core wise,
>     Monticello is 1000 times better than Git, but my complains with
>     Monticello is on the user level. As a smalltalker I just dont see
>     the point of prefering Monticello over Git , or screw Git, you
>     want mercurial ? thats fine too.
>     >
>     > I just dont see it whats the big deal with Monticello.
>     >
>     > "And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ?"
>     >
>     > I have been honest from the very start when I started pushing
>     for git and Github. I have been crystal clear. My usage of git is
>     super simple.
>     >
>     > I dont work in teams, I work alone, I dont even use branches, I
>     do git pull, git add, git commit and git push. I have reverted
>     commits a couple of times, I have reset to head sometimes because
>     of some nasty merges and that was it.  I am almost never have
>     merge conflicts.
>     >
>     > You want me to compare my experience with monticello and StHub
>     VS git and Github using Pharo ? Nope you dont.
>     >
>     > Do I find git always easy to use ? You know what , I am a python
>     coder and I definetly appreciate ease of use and simplicity but
>     lets be frank here Git was made by the same guy that made the
>     freaking Linux kernel. He made Git not to be easy but able to
>     manage an enormous amount of code the easy way the fastest
>     possible way and he accomplished that goal.
>     >
>     > So do I find git easy to use ? Nope
>     >
>     > Do I care ? Nope, because I rather use something that is
>     difficult to use but powerful and with good performance than
>     something that is very easy to use , limited and slow. Hell , I
>     dont even find Pharo easy to use , its power and flexibility that
>     made me love it.
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:23 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe
>     <sven at stfx.eu <mailto:sven at stfx.eu>> wrote:
>     >
>     > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:49, Dimitris Chloupis
>     <kilon.alios at gmail.com <mailto:kilon.alios at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Obviously it will better fit Pharo since its made to work with
>     smalltalk code, but that does not make it any less terrible. Just
>     because you have one implementation of something that does not
>     mean its good. Its just means its there and it works.
>     > >
>     > > I dont know the internal, they are not documented anyway,
>     there are some class comments here and there but thats pretty much
>     it. I dont even remember when was the last time monticello got an
>     updated, I mean a serious update not just a couple of bug fixes
>     the 2 years I have been around.
>     > >
>     > > Secondly GUI is just plain awful, Smalltalk maybe be the first
>     or one of the first to implement guis, but those implementations
>     never ended up to something that would be approachable and easy to
>     use on a day to day basis, some tools suffer more from this some
>     less, Monticello is up there with the worse design.
>     > >
>     > > Thirdly the inability of the system to version control images
>     , audio files and other assets it defeats the central purpose of
>     smalltalk of everything being objects with a loud "Nope !" from
>     Monticello "Only source code is".
>     > >
>     > > So its awesome that Smalltalk , and Squeak got its own version
>     control system, that is easy to use and Pharo inherited it.
>     Congratulations to people behind it. But the GUI needs to go, its
>     a bad advertisement to Pharo, and we need something that is not
>     stuck to dark ages as you correctly pointed but for the opposite
>     reason. Because any way you try to turn Monticello you wont find a
>     label written "modern" on it. The label you may find on it is more
>     like "abandonware".
>     > >
>     > > Also there like a ton of OOP languages out there using git
>     with no major problems, the problem with smalltalk is that
>     smalltalk is an island.
>     > >
>     > > And the problem with islands is when you end having fun with
>     them you feel stuck since they dont provide an easy access to the
>     outside world.
>     > >
>     > > "Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text"
>     > >
>     > > Last time I checked Monticello used a format called mcz which
>     is nothing more than a zip file containing st files, which are as
>     you call it "dead text" files. Also I would like to remind you
>     that git is used by the CUIS smalltalk to version control their
>     images, I thought images are live code.
>     > >
>     > > Personally I dont see the diffirence between live and dead
>     text. Its just text to me. The VM is the one that makes it live
>     anyway.
>     >
>     > Yes and no.
>     >
>     > If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in it.
>     >
>     > When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes,
>     methods, inheritance,
>     > it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form
>     that you wrote them.
>     >
>     > Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been
>     done, and was not successful, because you lose something essential
>     by leaving the environment.
>     >
>     > The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be
>     seen as an island that needs to integrate with others, there are
>     degrees of openness. Your Blender or Python are islands too, just
>     like SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are
>     easy, some are hard(er). It all depends on your position.
>     >
>     > When have you last looked at the source code of git ?
>     >
>     > And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ?
>     >
>     > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe
>     <sven at stfx.eu <mailto:sven at stfx.eu>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis
>     <kilon.alios at gmail.com <mailto:kilon.alios at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not
>     always smooth either. I have the VM crashing again and again
>     completely randomly when it was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency
>     for my project Ephestos, had to drop SmaCC and moving my python
>     type parsing at python side.
>     > > >
>     > > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to
>     equate git with dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than
>     monticello, frankly. No offense to people who made it , its great
>     that is in there but its full of problems and bad designs and cant
>     even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI clients.
>     Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst
>     tool of Pharo.
>     > >
>     > > No it is not. It is a version management system that
>     understands our object and code model, a system that we control.
>     Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text.
>     > >
>     > > (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve,
>     nor that we should not improve our git integration.)
>     > >
>     > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier
>     <thierry.goubier at gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > > > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris
>     <sean at clipperadams.com <mailto:sean at clipperadams.com>>:
>     > > > NorbertHartl wrote
>     > > > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf.
>     Thus you cannot use
>     > > > > Versionner anymore
>     > > >
>     > > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after
>     switching all my
>     > > > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket
>     for private). I
>     > > > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC
>     artifacts feels like
>     > > > going back to the dark ages :/
>     > > >
>     > > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner
>     into a BaselineOf is probably a way to do it.
>     > > >
>     > > > Thierry
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > -----
>     > > > Cheers,
>     > > > Sean
>     > > > --
>     > > > View this message in context:
>     http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html
>     > > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at
>     Nabble.com.
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20160128/f8c5b1dd/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list