Le��28 sept. 2015 04:29, "Ben Coman" <btc@openinworld.com> a ��crit��:
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I���ve been using git for all my projects since more than one year now, and frankly I found it really good��� and the pull request mechanism is unbeatable.
> > Now, what I do believe is that we need to improve a couple of things:
> >
> > 1) filtree format is not good while working on teams (which is the power of git, after all). Merging is a pain and the merge driver provided by Thierry is just a patch, not a real alternative.
> > 2) double commit is annoying.
> >
> > We have a decent solution for (2), gitfiletree but is not working fine in windows (and that���s mandatory). I would like a community push here to make it work fine.
> > Once is working, I would like to replace the OSProcess usage with actual libgit2. As far as I understand, this is already possible but we hadn���t commit time to make it possible (and I would put it as a secondary goal: first make it work with what we have, then use the library).
>
> Would moving to libgit2 bypass the problem with stdio?
>
> > Now the filetree format has problems merging because it stores some metadata that we do not really need. The origin of this is the fact that is using git as ���just another interchangeable repository for monticello���. IMHO while this was desirable for start, is not a good solution now. We do not need that information at all.
> > I worked in a replacement for filetree and as a file format it works fine��� is just a variation who does not stores the not-needed information and relies on STON to manage the one we actually need.
>
> I have a vague recollection that the problem was a particular file
> where data changed each commit and having the idea that this might be
> solved by: each commit writing metadata to a different file e.g.
> NNNN.metadata, and Monticello knows to pick up the highest numbered
> metadata.
>
>
> > After, we can build the actual tools we need. But with that working we will see a lot clearer what we actually need to do :)
> >
> > So I would do a ���call for pushing��� and ask community to spend some time making it work properly.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Esteban
> >
> >
> >> On 27 Sep 2015, at 13:43, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alex do you know git?
> >> Because to me git is **really** complex. I do not talk about add push commit but rebase remote....
>
> Git is very flexible which implies complexity for newcomers to it.
> What is required on top of git is a "well defined" workflow.�� �� I see
> sometimes on this mail-list that people design their tools for
> flexibility since they don't want to *impose* a workflow on people,
> which is a commendable philosophy, but slows adoption by newcomers.
> It may be useful to define "this is *the* way its done here" , with
> the standard proviso that there may be missteps that need to be tuned.

Currently working in a distributed team with multiple companies. We use git and also Phabricator for reviews which is really great.

I cant think of *not* using a DVCS and features like git rebase in such an environment.

Phil

>
> cheers -ben
>
>
> >> Did you try to use sourcetree (the UI for git) to understand what I mean?
> >> So we cannot use git simply we have to propose a much nicer model on top of this assembly.
> >>
> >> Now you can systematicall save your code with monticello and automatically publish it to git.
> >> Esteban has a script for doing that.
> >>
> >> Stef
> >>
> >>> ��� Pharo may be within the 30 most popular languages on Earth.
> >>> The 30th languages has 3,253 repository. There are 2,635 on SmalltalkHub.
> >>>
> >>> I wish we had a nice Git integration.
> >>>
> >>> Alexandre
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>