2014-12-01 11:21 GMT+01:00 Hilaire <hilaire@drgeo.eu>:

Le 27/11/2014 11:29, kilon alios a �crit :
> My personal opinion on Github and Pharo is that it already works great
> with Pharo. The workflow with filetree is exactly the same as other
> languages that gives the added advantage that you can use all the
> powerful tools you use with other languages for commiting to git and
> github. I have not experienced any kind of issue of problem using github
> with Pharo nor my experience has been any worse than other languages.
>

With git, don't you lost the capability to browse the history of changes
in your code?

Not with GitFileTree.

You get an as good or even better history (i.e. garanteed merge: its common to see long project histories in mcz with missing versions in history, with sometimes merge failures in Monticello as a consequence).

You can also browse changes in subsets: all versions of a method across hundreds of packages versions, you could track all versions of a class, etc...

All this is local and synchronized to the remote: you have a complete local history, which makes querying the history a lot easier (than downloading hundreds of mcz(s) from smalltalkhub). It is also convenient to be able to commit properly without an internet connection.

A true competitor to Pharo+git is a database-based system with replication / merge. I think the Squeak side has it (I remember Eliot talking about that).

Thierry

�

Hilaire

--
Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu
iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu