On 22 May 2013 13:13, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:
Le 22/05/2013 14:02, Frank Shearar a écrit :
On 22 May 2013 12:49, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> wrote:
./pharo Pharo.image config filetree://`pwd`/../src/
Fails on trying to execute #mcRepositoryAsUser:withPassword: on a GenericUrl instance inside Gofer.
Yep, I'd agree with your assessment. Has Pharo forked Gofer, or does it still use Lukas Renggli's repository?
We forked it. We cannot built a part of our infrastructure on a project that can vanished in nature.
Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?"
Now, I'd have a question related to that. Where should I push my changes ?
Or give up on updating Gofer and use eval instead of config for my package loading.
Because the latter option makes it more difficult/less useful for me to think about submitting changes to Gofer. I've no interest in arguing about the merits of either position: I'm quite clear on how _I_ feel about things (namely, push changes upstream), but I do not want to fight over _your_ feelings on the matter. I just want to know where Pharo stands on the issue of changes to codebases that might be shared between Pharo and Squeak. (Gofer, Metacello, FileTree for starters.)
I'll start then to worry about the fact I'm relying on FileTree in the first place, then, since this is not a part of the Pharo infrastructure.
But I couldn't find a way to get my git integration to work otherwise.
Exactly. I'm halfway through supporting FileTree directly in Squeak's Installer (currently stalled as I figure out why SSL broke), and I'd intended to make Gofer support FileTree directly once that was done. But where to push the changes? frank