Yes :) On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:00:02PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
thanks dave :) I just wanted to say that sometimes forking and pushing is the best way to make progress and it does not imply that people are stealing, just wanted to go faster? whatever. Stef
On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:27 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:09:42PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Issue 5796: Integrate OSProcess http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5796
Are we doing this? If so, are we forking it (I hope not), or just integrating updated package versions as Dave releases them?
This is an interesting question. I know that Camillo and Damien or somebody else made pipeable working. I suggested that the code is sent to dave for integration in his package. (I do not know if this was done). Now if we really want to have a strong interoperation with the rest of the world either OSProcess has a pharo branch and a nice packaging or may be this is time to fork. I could understand that dave does not have cycles to handle that.
Forking in itself is not a bad process when it serves a clear purpose. Look at Pharo. We did it not just for fun (and it was never an easy solution after all the effort we did since years to promote Squeak - books, videos, lectures?.) but to accomplish a vision.
So if we get a really hyper cool system to execute commands like ` in ruby then I want it immediately at the price of forking :)
Stef
PipeableOSProcess should be working in Pharo now.
A Metacello configuration to load OSProcess plus part of CommandShell (PipeableOSProcess and related classes) might be helpful for Pharo. I'm not working on that, so that might be a good thing for someone to do.
Dave