On 11 March 2013 22:06, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 March 2013 19:00, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 March 2013 19:06, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 March 2013 17:54, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
pff... really people... i am thinking how to streamline our existing development process.. and instead i hear once again about git.
Camillo needs to hit you around the head with a command line. You haven't used it. You've heard several people who have used both Monticello and git extensively say that git beats the crap out of Monticello. Go and learn git properly. THEN come back and maybe we can have a conversation.
I always using git from command line. And let me remind you it was me who created Cog mirrors on gitorious.. so, you shoot into the sky here. But i want more than that.. and why i happy to see that github proposes more on top, i do not really see how you can integrate that with usual workflow of smalltalk developer (means navigating/debugging living code in image).
OK, fair enough. I had indeed forgotten about your gitorious work, and in fact if I recall correctly you tried to pushed the VM folk into moving from subversion to git. My apologies.
okay, lets throw away MC & stuff, migrate everything on file-based file-per-method git repository and then navigate diffs on github, and trying to find senders or implementors of selector using web browser .
I do believe you ought to take a moment and go read the archives. Also, I happen to nearly violently disagree with the file-per-method approach, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
But you know what, just forget it. It's not your problem, other people are already solving the problem, and one day hopefully you'll forget all about this while quietly your tools happily use git under the hood, where you neither know nor care.
I actually don't care where files stored , in what format and what service it using. I want to make my life easier integrating those services with image, so i could, without switching contexts (like between image/web browser), do my work faster and more efficient.
Yes, agreed.
So if I can summarise,
* git is not an answer for you because you don't care about the format source is stored in. * git is an answer for me because it immediately gives you a fantastic user interface and hooks into just about everything. * github is not an answer for you because it doesn't provide you with any tools more advanced than a diff * github is an answer for me because you can always implement your own hooks for triggering CI, arbitrary code analysis, etc. Github's commit API will let you give the green light or red light to any commit so you can see at a glance how good a pull request is.
So, lets get back to the topic. Right now we have more or less same with MC + jenkins.. yes.. it may be ugly and inferior etc.. but if we compare human resources.. But see, the model right now is that to review the code, i must go to bug tracker/git (or if it is commit in some other project, go to that project repo) and manually load code from there.. and then after i loaded it into image, fun begins.. except that after review i have few choices: - send mail to author that his work sucks - say, code is fine and go back to web page, click here and there and mark it as OK.. now what i want is a tool which could help me to put a comments as i looking at code and then when i done, package that and upload where i want.. then other guy can load it into image and see my remarks.. yes, maybe it is too complicated/idealistic .. propose yours.
But of course there's nothing stopping one using github OR an-image tools. (Or tools that produce custom images based on github commits that run analyses and then persist somewhere so you can (a) see the analyses immediately and (b) play around with the code.
Mainly I think it's a mistake to reinvent tech _just because_ you simply must work in an image. That's the core behind my moaning. (And yes, I am working on addressing these issues, so I'm not _just_ moaning.)
Yes, please.. but i hope you agree with me, that reviewing smalltalk code on web page or in text/diff viewer is not something you can do, if you wanna do it for real, not just looking for typos :) For doing it for real, you need an image.
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.