Hi Thierry,

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-12-03 4:16 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:

Yes, but *I* care about the Monticello metadata.�� IMO its *better* than the git metadata.

Eliot, you'll have to do better than just IMO on that one.

Quite right.�� One benefit is that Monticello metadata, at least per-method time stamps, are available for introspection inside the image.�� Just today I was alerted of some bad code by a particular author and it was very convenient to read all the methods by that particular author, which helped me find another problem.�� I also like the free frorm of the middle of method timestamps; I can and do annotate with labels for specific refactorings.

Another benefit is that Monticello is amenable for scripting much more easily than git.�� I've been working on the SPur bootstrap fro a while now.�� It is essentially complete.�� What the bootstrap does in Monticello is construct patched versions of four packages, substituting specific methods with replacements.�� Each patched package inherits both from its patched ancestor and the package that was patched (a ladder like structure).�� This allows Spur to keep up-to-date automatically w.r.t. Squeak trunk.

I'm also delighted that work like Chris Muller's version server is out there.�� This is very nicely integrated to allow me to find out which package versions contain versions of a particular method or class definition.

Some of us work with *both*, and have code for going back and forth, so the *better*; bah.

I also happens to know how long it takes to parse hundreds of monticello metadata files... and I wasn't impressed with the result.

Yes, but this can be reengineered.�� Most things can be optimized.�� This could be with a little effort.�� What's needed is to generate and maintain momentum.�� That's what worries me about git integration.�� It's a slippery slope towards giving up Monticello and just using git.�� And git itself will one day be viewed as old-hat.�� Monticello should be easy to keep evolving.�� It's in Smalltalk few chrissake.

��
What's really lacking in Monticello is a) it's not high school so one can't preen in front of the world on github and b) it has no support for external files.�� Well, a) will be solved by growing up and b) can be solved by building the solution.�� I know what I'd rather do.

[and apologies for being deliberately incendiary but I *hate* the movement away from tools in Squeak/Pharo.�� It is a movement towards stasis and death, and personally I'm enjoying life too much].

You then have noticed that those threads are about working on tools?

Yes, and that's why I'm writing to the thread.�� I hope that work on integrating foreign file support, and integrating things like Chris Muller's version server continues in the Pharo community.�� More than anything I hope that Monticello remains a bridge between the Squeak and Pharo communities.

��

Thierry
��

best,

Eliot