On 08 Jul 2015, at 15:19, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-07-08 15:11 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com>:

> Our ���coding��� atoms are methods, not classes. Having method per file we can trace the history of changes with method detail, not class.

That I understand.

> Now��� you are complaining in the wrong problem.

Well��� Having one file per method seems to be very problematic after all.

It's not ;)

��

> FileTree meta information (who causes your merge problems) is needed *just* to keep monticello compatibility.
> That���s what is plain wrong and should be at least optional :)
>
> I would happily integrate a ���PlainFileTree��� protocol (without monticello information) as an option, if someone provides such extension.
> Crap, I could make it myself if I have the time!��� maybe next insomnia night :P

We can work on this next week. I am fed up to hear ���why you guys are not using github?"

It's extremely easy to do.

Most of the code is ready for it.

But since there is no real push to get Pharo under git for now, I've left it as it is. In part because some are using FileTree directly and they need that compatibility level.

you���re wrong :)

I feel the pain each time I need to provide a ���we are not ready yet���.��

As I said��� real reason we are not ready is because we are still trying to mix to words, in ways no one actually needs.

So please��� push!

Esteban

ps: and btw��� there is no reason why we cannot keep ���mc-file-tree��� along with a ���plain-file-tree��� both alive. As I said��� I just can image very few cases when we *actually* need that compatibility.