----- Original Message ----- | From: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 1:22:41 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Another sad day] a nice example of the mess with json in FileTree | | Hi, | | I like the project, but I second the concerns of Stef. But, as I | understand, there seems to be consensus in this regard. | | One thing I still do not quite understand why we keep on having | version information inside the structural information. Why is it not | enough to let it only be the responsibility of the versioning system? | | As it is now, we are versioning the versions. | | If I understand correctly, the only reason is to accommodate legacy | version information. If this is the case, I guess a possibility would | be to just simulate this information in an initial commit, if we need | it at all. | | Do I miss something? Doru, The only point that you are missing is that the method timestamps are being included in the files themselves as a temporary measure until we have better git integration ... The original version of FileTree didn't have timestamps and for a short period I added them back in and then removed them again until this conversation occurred[3]. At that point it seemed like a good idea at the time to preserve the timestamps until they could be properly replaced by the underlying versioning system ... Cami Bruni and Max Leske are working on solving the git integration problem[1] ... as soon as we have good integration we'll be nuking the time stamp information from FileTree... Frank Shearar is working on an implementation of "the initial commit"[2] that allows one to duplicate the full Monticello history of a project in a git repository... Dale [1] https://github.com/dalehenrich/FSGit [2] http://www.lshift.net/blog/2012/08/20/monticello-git [3] http://forum.world.st/preserving-version-creator-timestamp-in-filetree-td463...