How to get started with Git and Pharo?
Hi I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo? What should I read? Stef
Stef, My introduction to git came largely from reading "A successful Git branching model"[1]. I tried to think how to map this particular git work flow to Metacello and long story short, decided to adapt Metacello to git:) It is also probably worth reading "What is a good Git workflow?"[2]. This article is more about how to use GitHub, but frankly the appeal of git to me goes hand in hand with a good collaboration model and GitHub does a good job supporting that. The first time you read these articles don't pay attention to the details, but try to get the overall flow/functionality and try to draw parallels to the work the you do with Monticello and Metacello ... let the thoughts marinate, ask some questions. "Pro Git"[3] is a book/web site and would recommend that you take a run through Chapter 2[4] to get a taste of git in action at the command line and virtually everything that you need to know to work on your own with git is covered in this chapter. Chapter 3[5] is on the nitty gritty of branching ... but again at this stage you want to just skim through the docs and get a feel of what is possible ... if something doesn't make sense at this stage ... ignore it:) Now go back to the "What is a good Git workflow?"[2] paper and read it in detail ... if you see a command/operation that you don't understand google it or look it up in "Pro Git" or ask questions ... Basically I am recommending that for your first foray into Git and Smalltalk you will be trying to follow the "What is a good Git workflow?"[2] model. FileTree allows you save Monticello packages into a git repository, but with FileTree you have to do all of the git commands from the command line. I'll let Thierry Goubier describe GitFileTree because I think it that package does a bit of remote control .... I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc. Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ... Of course there are other git workflows out there and other git collaboration sites besides GitHub...but is worth keeping things simple at first (I think) and when you have mastered git/github basics both personally and from a tool level, then it is a perfectly good time to start looking at other workflows and tools, because then you are able to make informed judgements ... HTH, Dale [1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ [2] https://help.github.com/articles/what-is-a-good-git-workflow [3] http://git-scm.com/book [4] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Getting-a-Git-Repository [5] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Branching [6] https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:27 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today. If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good. Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format.
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas ⦠and there are more. In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays. Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format.
I know you, and some others, have that opinion and that is OK. I also think that it would be nice to have (better git integration). But we essentially have it today, although a bit cumbersome, awkward (cfr https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core). Some of us store all their code in git all the time. My opinion is that it is not per se the most important thing. We have to focus on the aspects where we are better, not try being more the same as everybody else. We need modularisation, better tools, new ways of working with live objects, new interactive representations, mouldable tools, remote image tools, automatic cloud deploys, magic stuff, .. On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query
Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas
⦠and there are more.
In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays.
Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format.
On 26 Jun 2014, at 16:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I know you, and some others, have that opinion and that is OK. I also think that it would be nice to have (better git integration).
But we essentially have it today, although a bit cumbersome, awkward (cfr https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core). Some of us store all their code in git all the time.
My opinion is that it is not per se the most important thing. We have to focus on the aspects where we are better, not try being more the same as everybody else.
We need modularisation, better tools, new ways of working with live objects, new interactive representations, mouldable tools, remote image tools, automatic cloud deploys, magic stuff, ..
yes⦠and better git integration is part of âbetter toolsâ. and IMO, with the âplusâ that it can boost the other areas. Esteban
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query
Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas
⦠and there are more.
In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays.
Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format.
Le 26 juin 2014 21:54, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> a écrit :
On 26 Jun 2014, at 16:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I know you, and some others, have that opinion and that is OK. I also think that it would be nice to have (better git integration).
But we essentially have it today, although a bit cumbersome, awkward
(cfr https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core). Some of us store all their code in git all the time.
My opinion is that it is not per se the most important thing. We have
to focus on the aspects where we are better, not try being more the same as everybody else.
We need modularisation, better tools, new ways of working with live
objects, new interactive representations, mouldable tools, remote image tools, automatic cloud deploys, magic stuff, ..
yes⦠and better git integration is part of âbetter toolsâ. and IMO, with the âplusâ that it can boost the other areas.
Yes, Git enables all of code and assets in one single place and tooling that helps a lot with changes ( e.g. gitk ). That is huge in practice. Phil
Esteban
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <
dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work
support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be
clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query
Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas
⦠and there are more.
In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays.
Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the
representation of the file format.
On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:28, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Le 26 juin 2014 21:54, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> a écrit :
On 26 Jun 2014, at 16:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I know you, and some others, have that opinion and that is OK. I also think that it would be nice to have (better git integration).
But we essentially have it today, although a bit cumbersome, awkward (cfr https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core). Some of us store all their code in git all the time.
My opinion is that it is not per se the most important thing. We have to focus on the aspects where we are better, not try being more the same as everybody else.
We need modularisation, better tools, new ways of working with live objects, new interactive representations, mouldable tools, remote image tools, automatic cloud deploys, magic stuff, ..
yes⦠and better git integration is part of âbetter toolsâ. and IMO, with the âplusâ that it can boost the other areas.
Yes, Git enables all of code and assets in one single place and tooling that helps a lot with changes ( e.g. gitk ). That is huge in practice.
I know that there are lots of git tools out there, but how do these help - they are disconnected from the image, and thus disconnected from our regular way of working (senders, implementors, references, ...). The current source code format in git is cool, but can you manage a merge or diff like that, with all the different parts scattered over 10s, 100s of files, with no matter what tool ? Apart from the fact that such bigger merge is always very difficult, no other tools will support our world view, ever. https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/a4c40ae92c67b2d4d63635d89... You and I understand the above, no Java/C#/Go programmer will. The next discussion will be: what are all those silly method files, why not put them all in one file ? Then the question is, what are all those silly exclamation marks in our file out format ? And so on. I don't want to sound too negative, I just don't belief it will actually make that much difference.
Phil
Esteban
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query
Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas
⦠and there are more.
In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays.
Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format.
Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
The current source code format in git is cool, but can you manage a merge or diff like that, with all the different parts scattered over 10s, 100s of files, with no matter what tool ? Apart from the fact that such bigger merge is always very difficult, no other tools will support our world view, ever.
...
I don't want to sound too negative, I just don't belief it will actually make that much difference.
I've seen the work that Dale's done with tODE. Can you manage a merge with so many files? Yes, without a doubt. Does git do an excellent job of merging and differencing? Absolutely. In terms of making a difference, I'm of the opinion that git provides something modern, universal, and comparable to ENVY (which I have used for most of the last 20 years and admire immensely). Are there more important things to do? Without a doubt. Is this worth too little to bother with? Absolutely not. git will facilitate configuration management (not just versionning) and will also greatly facilitate cross-dialect compatibility. The ability to easily pick up an offering from one Smalltalk and fork it with small changes for another dialect will be nirvana for many of us. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-to-get-started-with-Git-and-Pharo-tp4765096p476517... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Sven, You don't believe that it is worthwhile ... that's okay ... you are entitled to your beliefs. Frankly, when you integrate git into a Smalltalk environment (and I have) you are not messing with 100's of little files ... you are working with methods and packages and classes ... the stuff that Smalltalk programmers work with every day ... and I don't even think about how the source is being stored because in my environment I work with methods, classes and packages and I rarely look at the disk (just like most Smalltalk programmers and unlike most Java/C#/Go programmers:)... Git brings another dimension to my smalltalk development experience in a couple of very critical areas, so I don't have to believe, I know... I do believe that it is worthwhile to integrate git into Smalltalk development environments and I'm doing something about that and I am willing to help other folks with similar beliefs ... So at the end of the day you can be as negative or as positive as you like and I will continue to plug away:) Dale On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:28, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Le 26 juin 2014 21:54, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> a
écrit :
On 26 Jun 2014, at 16:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I know you, and some others, have that opinion and that is OK. I also think that it would be nice to have (better git integration).
But we essentially have it today, although a bit cumbersome, awkward
(cfr https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core). Some of us store all their code in git all the time.
My opinion is that it is not per se the most important thing. We
have to focus on the aspects where we are better, not try being more the same as everybody else.
We need modularisation, better tools, new ways of working with live
objects, new interactive representations, mouldable tools, remote image tools, automatic cloud deploys, magic stuff, ..
yes⦠and better git integration is part of âbetter toolsâ. and IMO, with the âplusâ that it can boost the other areas.
Yes, Git enables all of code and assets in one single place and tooling that helps a lot with changes ( e.g. gitk ). That is huge in practice.
I know that there are lots of git tools out there, but how do these help - they are disconnected from the image, and thus disconnected from our regular way of working (senders, implementors, references, ...).
The current source code format in git is cool, but can you manage a merge or diff like that, with all the different parts scattered over 10s, 100s of files, with no matter what tool ? Apart from the fact that such bigger merge is always very difficult, no other tools will support our world view, ever.
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/a4c40ae92c67b2d4d63635d89...
You and I understand the above, no Java/C#/Go programmer will.
The next discussion will be: what are all those silly method files, why not put them all in one file ? Then the question is, what are all those silly exclamation marks in our file out format ? And so on.
I don't want to sound too negative, I just don't belief it will actually make that much difference.
Phil
Esteban
On 26 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>
wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <
dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work
support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be
clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: - pull requests instead SLICES - submodules (with different people taking care of them) - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query
Then there is other kind of advantages like: - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) - better visibility - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas
⦠and there are more.
In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays.
Esteban
Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the
representation of the file format.
On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort.
big +1 here The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools If your code cannot be exposed without friction youâre done The noise of the jungle of 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot will make your work invisible
another advantage of git is source code searches. It will essentially allow pharoers to search pharo code online and not just being isolated in their image. The search does not return just a whole library but even code fragments. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Sebastian Sastre < sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort.
big +1 here
The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools
If your code cannot be exposed without friction youâre done
The noise of the jungle of 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot *will* make your work invisible
My favorite feature by far is the ability to look at the git history of the methods themselves ... just the other day I had a bug that I was tracking down, and by looking at the git history I discovered that a critical change had been made to that method 1 year 12 days ago ... from that I was able to look at all of the changes to all of the packages that had been made in the same commit (the critical code had not only been moved to a different class but the critical method had been moved to a separate package ... and from that I was able to see that a bug had been introduced when not all of the critical method was moved ... bug fixed ... Besides method versions, you can look at the git history for a class, package or metacello project .... these are thing that would take a bit of work to accomplish using just Monticello ... and if you were to attempt to do it, the simplest thing to do would be to copy all of the packages into a git repository and just use git:) Frank Shearar wrote some code that did something along these lines a couple of years ago ... Dale On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
another advantage of git is source code searches. It will essentially allow pharoers to search pharo code online and not just being isolated in their image. The search does not return just a whole library but even code fragments.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Sebastian Sastre < sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort.
big +1 here
The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools
If your code cannot be exposed without friction youâre done
The noise of the jungle of 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot *will* make your work invisible
That is cool, but you/we can do that today, Pharo's full source is on github for quite some time now. @Sebastian So we are on github, gemstone even more, cuis too. And Squeak is not. Did anything change dramatically ? There are thousands of languages and systems on github, I like it too, but just being there makes little difference. It is just a tool, a good one, but no more. On 27 Jun 2014, at 00:16, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
My favorite feature by far is the ability to look at the git history of the methods themselves ... just the other day I had a bug that I was tracking down, and by looking at the git history I discovered that a critical change had been made to that method 1 year 12 days ago ... from that I was able to look at all of the changes to all of the packages that had been made in the same commit (the critical code had not only been moved to a different class but the critical method had been moved to a separate package ... and from that I was able to see that a bug had been introduced when not all of the critical method was moved ... bug fixed ...
Besides method versions, you can look at the git history for a class, package or metacello project .... these are thing that would take a bit of work to accomplish using just Monticello ... and if you were to attempt to do it, the simplest thing to do would be to copy all of the packages into a git repository and just use git:) Frank Shearar wrote some code that did something along these lines a couple of years ago ...
Dale
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote: another advantage of git is source code searches. It will essentially allow pharoers to search pharo code online and not just being isolated in their image. The search does not return just a whole library but even code fragments.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort.
big +1 here
The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools
If your code cannot be exposed without friction youâre done
The noise of the jungle of 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot will make your work invisible
On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
@Sebastian
So we are on github, gemstone even more, cuis too. And Squeak is not. Did anything change dramatically ?
There are thousands of languages and systems on github, I like it too, but just being there makes little difference. It is just a tool, a good one, but no more.
Itâs a tool that isnât too interesting as tool But it is in the part that it leverages the social aspect of coding Dramatic changes why expect that? You are only creating the chances to make your code more accessible and less alien to fresh eyes Did I say social already? Should say social one more time? like when people talk about things and collaboration might emerge?
Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
we are on github
I don't think that code mirrored by a robot tells us much about the potential impact of using GitHub the way it was designed - discussions directly in commit diffs; integration of issues, commits, users; a real depiction of who contributed what and when... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-to-get-started-with-Git-and-Pharo-tp4765096p476552... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi Dale, On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
My favorite feature by far is the ability to look at the git history of the methods themselves ... just the other day I had a bug that I was tracking down, and by looking at the git history I discovered that a critical change had been made to that method 1 year 12 days ago ... from that I was able to look at all of the changes to all of the packages that had been made in the same commit (the critical code had not only been moved to a different class but the critical method had been moved to a separate package ... and from that I was able to see that a bug had been introduced when not all of the critical method was moved ... bug fixed ...
Chris Muller has recently done some superb work in Squeak with his Magma database that provides exactly this within the existing Monticello framework. In current Squeak 4.5 images if you add the repository MCHttpRepository location: 'http://box4.squeak.org:8888/trunk' user: 'squeak' password: 'squeak' to the Monticello Browser and then add it to the packages one is interested in (a script to add it to all is trivial), then a "Browse mc history" menu item becomes available on the class and method lists in the browser and voila, one can browse the entire class and/or method history. This feature has been missing for a long time. I really needed it this morning and wasn't quite aware that it was available already. I expect this will become a standard feature of new Squeak releases. The server can easily be duplicated on one's own machine for working detached from the internet (e.g. via http://localhost:8888/mchistory) and updates itself at regular intervals.
Besides method versions, you can look at the git history for a class, package or metacello project .... these are thing that would take a bit of work to accomplish using just Monticello ... and if you were to attempt to do it, the simplest thing to do would be to copy all of the packages into a git repository and just use git:) Frank Shearar wrote some code that did something along these lines a couple of years ago ...
But the work's mostly been done. Chris's work provides class & method. Package history is there already, with "search history" providing free text search through a specific package's history, and Chris will be providing keyword search across all packages soon.
Dale
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
another advantage of git is source code searches. It will essentially allow pharoers to search pharo code online and not just being isolated in their image. The search does not return just a whole library but even code fragments.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Sebastian Sastre < sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today.
If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good.
Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so
I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort.
big +1 here
The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools
If your code cannot be exposed without friction youâre done
The noise of the jungle of 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot *will* make your work invisible
-- best, Eliot
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
My favorite feature by far is the ability to look at the git history of the methods themselves ... just the other day I had a bug that I was tracking down, and by looking at the git history I discovered that a critical change had been made to that method 1 year 12 days ago ... from that I was able to look at all of the changes to all of the packages that had been made in the same commit (the critical code had not only been moved to a different class but the critical method had been moved to a separate package ... and from that I was able to see that a bug had been introduced when not all of the critical method was moved ... bug fixed ...
Chris Muller has recently done some superb work in Squeak with his Magma database that provides exactly this within the existing Monticello framework. In current Squeak 4.5 images if you add the repository
Hey, glad it could be useful! Just for clarity, one thing MC doesn't do is track single commits that include changes across multiple packages. In Dale's story, the "critical code had not only been moved to a different class but the critical method had been moved to a separate package" -- MC doesn't have anything to track "multipackage commits"; (I don't think it needs it, even though it proved useful in Dale's example, because when we have a set of packages we care to work together, MC can instantiate a MCConfiguration to define it). The reason you were able to see the history of WeakRegistry today even though it had been moved from Collections to System is that the MCDefinitions instances are indexed simply by their #description, which is package agnostic. It didn't care that it moved packages.
MCHttpRepository location: 'http://box4.squeak.org:8888/trunk' user: 'squeak' password: 'squeak'
to the Monticello Browser and then add it to the packages one is interested in (a script to add it to all is trivial), then a "Browse mc history" menu item becomes available on the class and method lists in the browser and voila, one can browse the entire class and/or method history.
This feature has been missing for a long time. I really needed it this morning and wasn't quite aware that it was available already. I expect this will become a standard feature of new Squeak releases. The server can easily be duplicated on one's own machine for working detached from the internet (e.g. via http://localhost:8888/mchistory) and updates itself at regular intervals.
It was released with Squeak 4.5. The box4 server supporting it has been running for 7-8 months.
Besides method versions, you can look at the git history for a class,
package or metacello project .... these are thing that would take a bit of work to accomplish using just Monticello ... and if you were to attempt to do it, the simplest thing to do would be to copy all of the packages into a git repository and just use git:) Frank Shearar wrote some code that did something along these lines a couple of years ago ...
But the work's mostly been done. Chris's work provides class & method. Package history is there already, with "search history" providing free text search through a specific package's history, and Chris will be providing keyword search across all packages soon.
TMK, Pharo did not adopt the MCRepository changes we did, so there would be issues in Pharo. The box4 tool is intended only as a tool to help Monticello users.. Every kind of MC backend will have its own pluses and minuses, it's an area worth exploring in multiple directions..
Esteban My old age taught me to be suspicious when everything is so black and white. I do not think that everything will be so nice. And for me git is not github. Stef On 26/6/14 20:52, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >> >>> I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc. >>> >>> Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ... >> That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today. >> >> If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a direct integration is better) that would be good. >> >> Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO >> Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so > I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the effort. > Of course, important part of the advantages came from the tools around git (like github) more than git itself, but all is one and the same :) > A couple of examples of what I think will improve our work: > - pull requests instead SLICES > - submodules (with different people taking care of them) > - traceability: you can map an issue with a pull requests directly making it a lot better to query > > Then there is other kind of advantages like: > - better entry-point for newbies to the community (they all expect something like git this days) > - better visibility > - confidence. This is subjective but important: companies feel more confident with something like git than a specific tool to keep their sources. > - we can stop maintaining things like smalltalkhub and important parts of monticello itself and concentrate our efforts in other, more interesting areas > > ⦠and there are more. > > In conclusion, I think expending time in git integration is one of the best ways to contribute to the develop of Pharo nowadays. > > Esteban > >> Anyway, it is a delicate subject as it also touches on the representation of the file format. >> >> > >
EstebanLM wrote
- better visibility
+1. I found an online tool that analyzes a person's programming contributions that described me as (paraphrase): "a Javascript expert who dabbles in Smalltalk" or some such nonsense, because it could see my (very) few Amber contributions on GitHub, but was blissfully unaware of my countless MC commits. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-to-get-started-with-Git-and-Pharo-tp4765096p476552... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
thank dale. I'm using thunderbid and sometimes I have some mails that I do not see and I have to query explicitly. I will read this full thread and the doc. stef On 26/6/14 19:07, Dale Henrichs wrote:
Stef,
My introduction to git came largely from reading "A successful Git branching model"[1]. I tried to think how to map this particular git work flow to Metacello and long story short, decided to adapt Metacello to git:)
It is also probably worth reading "What is a good Git workflow?"[2]. This article is more about how to use GitHub, but frankly the appeal of git to me goes hand in hand with a good collaboration model and GitHub does a good job supporting that.
The first time you read these articles don't pay attention to the details, but try to get the overall flow/functionality and try to draw parallels to the work the you do with Monticello and Metacello ... let the thoughts marinate, ask some questions.
"Pro Git"[3] is a book/web site and would recommend that you take a run through Chapter 2[4] to get a taste of git in action at the command line and virtually everything that you need to know to work on your own with git is covered in this chapter. Chapter 3[5] is on the nitty gritty of branching ... but again at this stage you want to just skim through the docs and get a feel of what is possible ... if something doesn't make sense at this stage ... ignore it:)
Now go back to the "What is a good Git workflow?"[2] paper and read it in detail ... if you see a command/operation that you don't understand google it or look it up in "Pro Git" or ask questions ...
Basically I am recommending that for your first foray into Git and Smalltalk you will be trying to follow the "What is a good Git workflow?"[2] model.
FileTree allows you save Monticello packages into a git repository, but with FileTree you have to do all of the git commands from the command line.
I'll let Thierry Goubier describe GitFileTree because I think it that package does a bit of remote control ....
I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the browser, etc.
Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually been ahead of me in several different areas ...
Of course there are other git workflows out there and other git collaboration sites besides GitHub...but is worth keeping things simple at first (I think) and when you have mastered git/github basics both personally and from a tool level, then it is a perfectly good time to start looking at other workflows and tools, because then you are able to make informed judgements ...
HTH,
Dale
[1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ [2] https://help.github.com/articles/what-is-a-good-git-workflow [3] http://git-scm.com/book [4] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Getting-a-Git-Repository [5] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Branching [6] https://github.com/dalehenrich/tode
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:27 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
I read http://www.stic.st/wp-content/conferences/2012/Wednesday/1415-Practical_Git_... and I found http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html But is there something that works and it simple? Stef On 26/6/14 18:27, stepharo wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
Stef, You need to cut your teeth for a decent couple hours to get to terms with Git. Especially when using a workflow with branches, with merges, and several contributors. I knew of quite a couple of SCMs (including Hg) but Git is a special beast. I liked Git Recipes: A Problem Solution Approach as it was very pragmatic. HTH Phil On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:09 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
I read
http://www.stic.st/wp-content/conferences/2012/Wednesday/ 1415-Practical_Git_for_Smalltalk-Henrichs.pdf and I found http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html
But is there something that works and it simple?
Stef
On 26/6/14 18:27, stepharo wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
I use git for my books. Now the simple fact that a tool has to help me to do simple action is a sign of strange design. This is the same as Java design and eclipse. When you code without eclipse you will a real pain :) I found the git API far to low level from my developer perspective and this is what I would like the pharo abstraction to protect our users (while getting the benefits from git). And this is why when esteban is telling that this is what newbies expect I cannot believe such kind of statements because there are simply bullshit. :) Stef
Stef,
You need to cut your teeth for a decent couple hours to get to terms with Git. Especially when using a workflow with branches, with merges, and several contributors. I knew of quite a couple of SCMs (including Hg) but Git is a special beast.
I liked Git Recipes: A Problem Solution Approach as it was very pragmatic.
HTH Phil
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:09 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
I read
http://www.stic.st/wp-content/conferences/2012/Wednesday/1415-Practical_Git_... and I found http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html
But is there something that works and it simple?
Stef
On 26/6/14 18:27, stepharo wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
On Jun 28, 2014, at 5:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
And this is why when esteban is telling that this is what newbies expect I cannot believe such kind of statements because there are simply bullshit. :)
Hey Stef, we can believe that is bullshit all we want and at the end of the day this is what happens: Software Engineers Are In Demand, And GitHub Is How You Find Them http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/10/20/software-engineers-are-... How to Recruit Using Github, Quora, Dribbble & More http://www.slideshare.net/VivekReddy4/how-to-recruit-using-github-quora-drib... With the current demand, if you werenât pitched yet from your github profile is because youâre forcing yourself to stay out of the game sebastian o/ blog: http://sebastianconcept.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sebastiansastre github: https://github.com/sebastianconcept
Stef, Git is not perfect. Monticello is not perfect. Metacello is not perfect. GitHub is not perfect. Git and Github brings some things to the table that make Monticello and Metacello and collaborative development in Smalltalk better... Half of Metacello - the bit where you must "manually" record the version number for every .mcz file used - one of the most tedious parts - becomes unnecessary with git. With git a Metacello version references a specific commit, tag or branch. When we release a version of Seaside3 for GemStone, we just tag a repository and record the tag in the configuration of ... no need for "flattening" or meticulously recording of mcz file versions ... this simple fact by itself is almost enough to make the "complexity of git" worthwhile... Here's the complete version specification for Seaside3.1.1 in the ConfigurationOfSeaside3: spec for: #'gs3.x' do: [ spec baseline: 'Seaside3' with: [ spec repository: 'github://glassdb/Seaside31:3.1.1-gs31/repository' ] ]. That's it ... done... 95% of my git interactions are: git add ... git commit ... git push ... git pull ... This isn't that complicated to understand ... there are certainly times when it is necessary to use some of the more arcane commands, but frankly there are complicated operations in the Monticello/Metacello universe. How do you merge two Metacello versions? How do you merge changes to multiple mcz files? How do you fork/branch a large project like Seaside3 and still retain the ability to track changes from the master? I have done all of these things without git and it is not pretty .... not by a long shot...I wish we did have some arcane commands to help:) With git, all three of those operations are just part of eco-system... With github, I can merge a multiple mcz file contribution into my project ... WITH THE PUSH OF A BUTTON! GiHub arranges to run the tests using travis-ci, so before I dare push the button, I can be assured that all of the tests are passing. Before pushing the button, I can easily review all of the proposed changes and critique the proposed changes on a line by line basis and the contributor and I can engage in an online conversion ... on a line by line basis ... The contributor can make changes in her repository and they are reflected in the original pull request and the tests are automatically rerun... When the tests are green and I am satisfied with the review ... I press a button ... and the code is merged into my project and I can go back to work ... _This_ feature by itself is worth the price of admission for git ... It takes a bit of time to become comfortable with git, but if you are feeling any of pain that I have mentioned above, then it is worth taking the time to become comfortable with git ... If you are not feeling that pain, then I envy you:) and by all means ... do not learn git:) Dale On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:10 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
I use git for my books. Now the simple fact that a tool has to help me to do simple action is a sign of strange design. This is the same as Java design and eclipse. When you code without eclipse you will a real pain :) I found the git API far to low level from my developer perspective and this is what I would like the pharo abstraction to protect our users (while getting the benefits from git). And this is why when esteban is telling that this is what newbies expect I cannot believe such kind of statements because there are simply bullshit. :)
Stef
Stef,
You need to cut your teeth for a decent couple hours to get to terms with Git. Especially when using a workflow with branches, with merges, and several contributors. I knew of quite a couple of SCMs (including Hg) but Git is a special beast.
I liked Git Recipes: A Problem Solution Approach as it was very pragmatic.
HTH Phil
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:09 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
I read
http://www.stic.st/wp-content/conferences/2012/Wednesday/1415-Practical_Git_... and I found http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html
But is there something that works and it simple?
Stef
On 26/6/14 18:27, stepharo wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo.... I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4) Uko On 26 Jun 2014, at 18:27, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Because I haven't spent the time updating the configuration for that :( I'm pushing small changes on GitFileTree at the moment; a Pharo4 version should come soon. Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Now it works with Pharo4! Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
On 27 Jun 2014, at 15:53, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Now it works with Pharo4!
Cool. Thanks!
Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
thanks Now is there a tutorial? Beause http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html scared me. On 27/6/14 15:53, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Now it works with Pharo4!
Thierry
Stef, all, First, you need to know how to work with git and understand the vocabulary. Otherwise, you _will_ get confused, and probably get disgusted. So, beware... git was made for and by linux people, which is all I am going to say about that... In my experience, tools always help and I can recommend sourcetree [1] or git tower [2]. Reading the links that Dale mentioned is a very good idea too. Next, Dale's 'getting started with github' [3] is a good intro to make your first git project work and understand the extra steps you need to make to manage source code. It does not have to be a github project. Let me also comment a bit on why we (at Yesplan) are now trying to switch from monticello to git for our daily work. I am using git for over a year now and we are actively switching to use it on a daily basis. First of all, in our daily work, we need continuous deployment. When a feature is ready, it must be shipped into production as soon as possible. If you are not the only one working on a codebase, continuous deployment requires that each feature is developed in its own branch and can only be integrated with the main codebase when it's ready and stable. Monticello just does not support branching well. In Git, this is natural. You can easily create feature branches, do partial publishes, merge the changes from the main codebase back into your feature branch, explore the version history, etc. I must also add that github's pull request and code commenting feature is a very productive way of working together on the same codebase in a structured way. About a year ago, I almost only used git tools to merge in the changes from Zinc 1.7 to 2.3.2 for the Gemstone port. In that change, Sven made a huge amount of package changes, which is about the worst case scenario to understand any evolution and merge it in a port (which has code changes itself). In about an afternoon of work, most of the dust had settled and I was using the git merge to understand code moves and to prevent gemstone-specific changes from being overwritten again. The best part there was probably the sub-method-level merges. Also, the reason I did not need any Smalltalk browser to do the merges is because filetree exports packages and classes as directories and methods as files. If you use the column layout of the Finder on Mac, the Finder becomes the System Browser (at least for understanding and navigating the structure of the source code, which is what you need at that level). Sourcetree had such a browser internally until very recently... so I am disappointed they removed that. Besides numerous other projects, we have Seaside hosted in a github repository too. The advantages are that we can test every feature branch and every platform automatically with Travis CI. We don't use pull requests in the community, but if we did, it would be way easier for contributors and maintainers. Forking and pulling makes it easy for people to patch something and contribute the code back, while at the same time, it allows the maintainers to protect the code base from harmful changes. Finally, the biggest pain with filetree is that it carries the monticello metadata. If you work together on the same branch, you _will_ get stupid merge conflicts on that metadata. Here, Thierry Goubier's FileTreeMerge tool [5] is a wonderful tool. Since I started using that, merges of the metadata are done by git automatically and I just forget about them. Nice work Thierry! Another pain is that publishing and loading code is a two-step process: files on disk and code in your image. You need to very carefully synchronize these. You may switch a branch on disk but forget to load it in the image, or start publishing code from the image to the disk where a different branch was checked out. This is where better tools for git from within the image will help. those were my 2 cents ;-) Johan [1] http://www.sourcetreeapp.com [2] http://www.git-tower.com [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/GettingStarte... [4] https://github.com/glassdb/Seaside31 [5] https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/GitFileTree-MergeDriver On 28 Jun 2014, at 10:12, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
thanks
Now is there a tutorial? Beause http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html scared me.
On 27/6/14 15:53, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo. (Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Now it works with Pharo4!
Thierry
You just got me convinced to go with Thierry's tooling... Phil Le 28 juin 2014 17:13, "Johan Brichau" <johan@inceptive.be> a écrit :
Stef, all,
First, you need to know how to work with git and understand the vocabulary. Otherwise, you _will_ get confused, and probably get disgusted. So, beware... git was made for and by linux people, which is all I am going to say about that...
In my experience, tools always help and I can recommend sourcetree [1] or git tower [2]. Reading the links that Dale mentioned is a very good idea too.
Next, Dale's 'getting started with github' [3] is a good intro to make your first git project work and understand the extra steps you need to make to manage source code. It does not have to be a github project.
Let me also comment a bit on why we (at Yesplan) are now trying to switch from monticello to git for our daily work. I am using git for over a year now and we are actively switching to use it on a daily basis.
First of all, in our daily work, we need continuous deployment. When a feature is ready, it must be shipped into production as soon as possible. If you are not the only one working on a codebase, continuous deployment requires that each feature is developed in its own branch and can only be integrated with the main codebase when it's ready and stable. Monticello just does not support branching well. In Git, this is natural. You can easily create feature branches, do partial publishes, merge the changes from the main codebase back into your feature branch, explore the version history, etc. I must also add that github's pull request and code commenting feature is a very productive way of working together on the same codebase in a structured way.
About a year ago, I almost only used git tools to merge in the changes from Zinc 1.7 to 2.3.2 for the Gemstone port. In that change, Sven made a huge amount of package changes, which is about the worst case scenario to understand any evolution and merge it in a port (which has code changes itself). In about an afternoon of work, most of the dust had settled and I was using the git merge to understand code moves and to prevent gemstone-specific changes from being overwritten again. The best part there was probably the sub-method-level merges. Also, the reason I did not need any Smalltalk browser to do the merges is because filetree exports packages and classes as directories and methods as files. If you use the column layout of the Finder on Mac, the Finder becomes the System Browser (at least for understanding and navigating the structure of the source code, which is what you need at that level). Sourcetree had such a browser internally until very recently... so I am disappointed they removed that.
Besides numerous other projects, we have Seaside hosted in a github repository too. The advantages are that we can test every feature branch and every platform automatically with Travis CI. We don't use pull requests in the community, but if we did, it would be way easier for contributors and maintainers. Forking and pulling makes it easy for people to patch something and contribute the code back, while at the same time, it allows the maintainers to protect the code base from harmful changes.
Finally, the biggest pain with filetree is that it carries the monticello metadata. If you work together on the same branch, you _will_ get stupid merge conflicts on that metadata. Here, Thierry Goubier's FileTreeMerge tool [5] is a wonderful tool. Since I started using that, merges of the metadata are done by git automatically and I just forget about them. Nice work Thierry!
Another pain is that publishing and loading code is a two-step process: files on disk and code in your image. You need to very carefully synchronize these. You may switch a branch on disk but forget to load it in the image, or start publishing code from the image to the disk where a different branch was checked out. This is where better tools for git from within the image will help.
those were my 2 cents ;-) Johan
[1] http://www.sourcetreeapp.com [2] http://www.git-tower.com [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/GettingStarte... [4] https://github.com/glassdb/Seaside31 [5] https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/GitFileTree-MergeDriver
On 28 Jun 2014, at 10:12, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
thanks
Now is there a tutorial? Beause http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-td4693999.html scared me.
On 27/6/14 15:53, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 26/06/2014 19:11, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
I can only suggest you to read my blogpost about configurations and
versioning: http://sleepycoders.blogspot.ch/2014/04/how-to-distribute-your-github-pharo....
I usually mix filetree and gitfiletree. Last one is better, because
you donât have to remember to commit in git each time you commit in pharo.
(Also I think that gitfiletree is not working with Pharo4)
Now it works with Pharo4!
Thierry
Hi Stéphane, I have to admit then that my presentation to you a month ago was a failure ;) Thierry Le 26/06/2014 18:27, stepharo a écrit :
Hi
I do not know the dif between git file tree, file tree.... and I would like to know how to get started with git in Pharo?
What should I read?
Stef
-- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
participants (14)
-
Chris Muller -
Dale Henrichs -
Eliot Miranda -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Goubier Thierry -
Johan Brichau -
kilon alios -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Richard Sargent -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sebastian Sastre -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Yuriy Tymchuk