On 2012-07-04, at 15:13, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
Well I can not follow this completely. I can not find an answer of why text-based solutions won't cut it and I have also no idea what an object-oriented revision control might have other than a very good way of handling text. I guess I wil have to find some older threads to get an idea.
Anyway what I can't understand is that we can not simply switch from fone repository to another. It does not even have to be always up-to-date.
Let me just ask you, how much time do you need if squeacksource is gone to get a new image filled up and running. No I do not know how often you do that but I for my part do it with nearly every Pharo version there is.
I'm now trying to get some stuff installed in Pharo 2.0 (I guess you want this stuff to be used) and it takes me hours over hours and I still do not get anywhere.
So I simply do not get why we just have a register of places where we can find this stuff and are not "forced" to code that into the monticello packages.
Well if I have to than at least Pharo should be able to easily allow me to run a kind of grep/replace in the ConfigurationOfFiles. AFAIKt I have the Extended search but this does just searching and not replacing. So I'm suposed to manually change all the ConfigurationOf to look in my local cache first. This is at least odd.
Another stuff I simply do not get is package-cache. Why is it local to every other Pharo image? Why can't I say drop all below package-cache on my machine that's it. I do not know how many copies I have around here with the same "information". I can not see why this should make sens in the "standard" case....
you're absolutely right :) Here in lille almost everybody sets up symlinks to have a single shared instance of a package-cache :)
I'm sorry but I simply do not understand a few things really. And well I can also not see an advantage of not treating sources as text-files for easier handling. This stupid text-files work since decades....
oh so true.