Dennis, Understood... You asked a very good question! If using git meant that we would have to go backwards to text-based development I wouldn't be so enthused. In the past I was "on the record" as being very skeptical of being able to use git for Smalltalk development, but back in January when I saw HOW Otto Behrens had mapped the Monticello package structure to disk, I saw that it could work very well for Smalltalk development. Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Dennis Schetinin" <chaetal@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 9:03:01 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] renggli mirror created on smalltalkhub | | | Dale, | | | Thank you for all (this and other) explanations you provided on the | topic. | | | When the topic is to provide another backend for storing Smalltalk | code, it's absolutely ok and all the advantages are understood. | | | But when some people say something like "source code is text and | nothing more" (at least that's what I hear, though I can be | mistaking) and we shouldn't reinvent the wheel⦠and I see it in | context of "Smalltalk is so unpopular"⦠and the logic is something | like: we should popularize it â hence we should use (preferably, | only) git for source-code control â and we should abandon images | because most developers do not like them, etc, etc. Well, it's a bit | scaring, because when I try to extrapolate and understand where it | is leading us, I wonder where's Smalltalk there? Do we need it at | all?! :) | | | Once again, I just feel this tendency in our society, and it's very | likely I'm misunderstanding and absolutely wrong. I'll be glad to | know I am, so I just wanted to clarify. | | | | | | Best regards, | Dennis Schetinin | Sent with Sparrow | | | | On Wednesday, 4 July 2012 г. at 20:30, Dale Henrichs wrote: | | | | | | Dennis, | | | If you look at the Cypress format[1] (used by FileTree), it is the | Monticello package structure "serialized to disk". Reading the | Cypress format from disk is no different than materializing the | Monticello package structure from an .mcz file. So any program that | an reason about the definitions from an .mcz file can reason about | the definitions from the Cypress format. | | | Cypress format may look like text, but to me I see Smalltalk | objects:) | | | Dale | | | [1] | https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress/blob/master/img/CypressStructure-ST... | ----- Original Message ----- | | From: "Dennis Schetinin" < chaetal@gmail.com > | | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | | Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 6:29:40 AM | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] renggli mirror created on smalltalkhub | | | | | | On Wednesday, 4 July 2012 г. at 16:11, Damien Cassou wrote: | | | | | | | | | | On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Dennis Schetinin < | | chaetal@gmail.com | | > wrote: | | | | | | | | Am I wrong considering migration to Git-or-AnythingElseTextOriented | | to be a | | give up on hopes for a real object-oriented source | | control/management | | as it | | could and should be in Smalltalk? | | | | | | can you think of any feature we could have now we couldn't with | | Git? | | I didn't say "now", I talked about "hopes". E.g. hopes for "Source" | | Control Tool being aware of refactorings and other *operations* I | | apply to my program, instead of treating it as a plain text with | | some changes of unknown nature. I'm not sure it's possible right | | now | | (I know it's not, better to say?). But with a Smalltalk-based | | source | | control we can have it on one splendid day in the future. And I | | think on the Git way we'll finish with just some advanced | | text-comparison algorithms. No? | | | | | | | | Best regards, | | Dennis Schetinin | | Sent with Sparrow | |