On 15 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Lukas Renggli wrote:
A quick comparison shows that the Pharo fork is based on outdated code and has some methods of the public API renamed.
where's the other code located? I would like to check that.
Me too especially because I committed in FS on squeak source and not in Pharo so that colin can commit. Because originally I worked on PharoTaskForces.
This is not how open-source works [1, 2]. Not even Pharo works like this.
In addition I do not see how we can control our life if we cannot publish on the repository of a part that should be central to us.
I understand that you want to change things. Also I understand that the original project might be too slow, or that the authors might not accept your changes. In this case it is only fair to do a proper fork [3], to choose a new name, and a new namespace. And to live with all the consequences.
Lukas
[1] http://producingoss.com/en/getting-started.html#developer-guidelines [2] http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/general.html [3] http://producingoss.com/en/forks.html#forks-initiating
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
Cooperation has to be mutual. I don't know enough about the history of all this, but I completely fail to understand how someone who wrote something like FileSystem or RB would not find it interesting that his code would be included by default in Pharo (and thus support a mutual cooperation). Being in an image by default means much more usage and true OSS feedback, it will only improve things. We have to work together to make progress. Anyway, that is my opinion. Sven