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?"
what means pushing changes upstream? to the original gofer repo?
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.)
Do we have the energy for that? Should we spent manpower? Who pay it and what else could they do instead? These are the questions I asked myself. I ***fight*** every day to push business around Pharo and to get credibility around our research and Pharo. This is a ***constant*** fight. Now I have no clue what is the vision behind squeak if any and why people doing business would use it instead of Pharo. But at the end of the day I cannot do anything about it soâ¦. Now I'm concerned that it can have an impact and slow us. Just having large configurationOf that starts to get complex to read/change and tests makes me nervous. Stef PS: we are ants running around while elephants (python, ruby, Javascripts) are passing close by. Not making serious progress is death.