Michael, Good point. Without starting a flame war, I find it necessary to give a big +1 to Pharo (the system and the people behind it) - I doubt I would be this far along in a move to Squeak. Servers quit (especially Windows boxes<g>), routers fail, and ISPs have bad days. The external world is not always visible. There is clearly a part of MC that does not anticipate these problems, and there need to be workarounds. It sounds like others have found them; I might build it into a future version of Migrate. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Michael Rueger Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:57 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Not a disaster (this time) Lukas Renggli wrote:
There is no need for urgent action (this is only a drill<g>), but there should be some redundancy in where the code is stored, and MC should not prevent my saving code I already have to my local drive. There isn't (at least not that I can find), and it does :(
Parse error.
Monticello is a distributed versioning system, so it is highly redundant by definition. You can't really blame anybody else if a version your are interested in is not reachable. I usually copy important code into my local repository.
Well, on the other hand it is extremely bad publicity if the Squeak community's main source repository, written in Squeak, is extremely unreliable. How can one expect someone to switch to Squeak when the first thing is encountering it being unreliable? Michael _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project