- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Dimitris Chloupis

"If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in it." why it should ? its a version control system, not a refactoring tool. " When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes, methods, inheritance, it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form that you wrote them." is that Monticello or is that refactoring classes and methods of pharo ? Because the way I see it is like this if you have a refactoring language, a language that can refactor its own code , that language should be able to take two diffirent pieces of code and not only show you a diff but also show you how your inheritance is affected, your classes even your live state. The big question here, from my side is why a version control system should do that ? Refactoring and version controlling for me at least is two very different tasks. I dont also see how a version control system that is self aware refactoring wise when already have refactoring tools in my IDE, is giving me any advantage me as a user. Most IDEs come with them anyway. Its not as if you will use a python IDE, or whatever language you use and the IDE will go "sorry dude I cannot tell you what git did there because it has no refactoring and I am too stupid to use my own refactoring tools". That IDE would belong to the bin. This is why we use specialized Git gui tools, they are not there just to make our screens pretty. "Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been done, and was not successful, because you lose something essential by leaving the environment." What you lose is the live state which monticello does not store anyway, how could it ? it only stores text files, its actually far more anti-Smalltalk than git is. Because with git you can version control your pharo images or your fuel files than contain the live state or you could export the live state and live code to a binary file. Now try that with monticello. The irony is very large, Git is far more Smalltalk friendly, than Monticello is. "The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be seen as an island that needs to integrate with others, there are degrees of openness. Your Blender or Python are islands too, just like SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are easy, some are hard(er). It all depends on your position." I completely agree in the end every API ever programm is to a degree an island. No code ever shakes in terror saying "oh my god I need to make my code 100% compatible with whatever is out there" . Its not possible. But the culture of those other languages is "lets keep things close" , "lets make coder's life" easier , "lets keep compatibility and standard/common practices" . Smalltalk does not do that because it loves experimentation, the whole smalltalk enviroment is experimentation heaven playground. Thats great because without it we dont have smalltalk but its also bad. "When have you last looked at the source code of git ?" Never ? Why should I, I dont even take a look at monticello source code. I tried to improve auto completion and my head kept spinning around and around, 10s of hours still could not figure out the code. I am not smart or knowledgable to judge Monticello on a source code basis. Maybe source code wise, core wise, Monticello is 1000 times better than Git, but my complains with Monticello is on the user level. As a smalltalker I just dont see the point of prefering Monticello over Git , or screw Git, you want mercurial ? thats fine too. I just dont see it whats the big deal with Monticello. "And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ?" I have been honest from the very start when I started pushing for git and Github. I have been crystal clear. My usage of git is super simple. I dont work in teams, I work alone, I dont even use branches, I do git pull, git add, git commit and git push. I have reverted commits a couple of times, I have reset to head sometimes because of some nasty merges and that was it. I am almost never have merge conflicts. You want me to compare my experience with monticello and StHub VS git and Github using Pharo ? Nope you dont. Do I find git always easy to use ? You know what , I am a python coder and I definetly appreciate ease of use and simplicity but lets be frank here Git was made by the same guy that made the freaking Linux kernel. He made Git not to be easy but able to manage an enormous amount of code the easy way the fastest possible way and he accomplished that goal. So do I find git easy to use ? Nope Do I care ? Nope, because I rather use something that is difficult to use but powerful and with good performance than something that is very easy to use , limited and slow. Hell , I dont even find Pharo easy to use , its power and flexibility that made me love it. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:23 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:49, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Obviously it will better fit Pharo since its made to work with smalltalk > code, but that does not make it any less terrible. Just because you have > one implementation of something that does not mean its good. Its just means > its there and it works. > > > > I dont know the internal, they are not documented anyway, there are some > class comments here and there but thats pretty much it. I dont even > remember when was the last time monticello got an updated, I mean a serious > update not just a couple of bug fixes the 2 years I have been around. > > > > Secondly GUI is just plain awful, Smalltalk maybe be the first or one of > the first to implement guis, but those implementations never ended up to > something that would be approachable and easy to use on a day to day basis, > some tools suffer more from this some less, Monticello is up there with the > worse design. > > > > Thirdly the inability of the system to version control images , audio > files and other assets it defeats the central purpose of smalltalk of > everything being objects with a loud "Nope !" from Monticello "Only source > code is". > > > > So its awesome that Smalltalk , and Squeak got its own version control > system, that is easy to use and Pharo inherited it. Congratulations to > people behind it. But the GUI needs to go, its a bad advertisement to > Pharo, and we need something that is not stuck to dark ages as you > correctly pointed but for the opposite reason. Because any way you try to > turn Monticello you wont find a label written "modern" on it. The label you > may find on it is more like "abandonware". > > > > Also there like a ton of OOP languages out there using git with no major > problems, the problem with smalltalk is that smalltalk is an island. > > > > And the problem with islands is when you end having fun with them you > feel stuck since they dont provide an easy access to the outside world. > > > > "Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text" > > > > Last time I checked Monticello used a format called mcz which is nothing > more than a zip file containing st files, which are as you call it "dead > text" files. Also I would like to remind you that git is used by the CUIS > smalltalk to version control their images, I thought images are live code. > > > > Personally I dont see the diffirence between live and dead text. Its > just text to me. The VM is the one that makes it live anyway. > > Yes and no. > > If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in it. > > When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes, methods, > inheritance, > it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form that you > wrote them. > > Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been done, and was > not successful, because you lose something essential by leaving the > environment. > > The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be seen as an > island that needs to integrate with others, there are degrees of openness. > Your Blender or Python are islands too, just like SAP, Microsoft and > Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are easy, some are hard(er). It all > depends on your position. > > When have you last looked at the source code of git ? > > And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ? > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > > > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always > smooth either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly > when it was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had > to drop SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. > > > > > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git > with dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No > offense to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of > problems and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and > GIT GUI clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the > worst tool of Pharo. > > > > No it is not. It is a version management system that understands our > object and code model, a system that we control. Git just manages blobs, > text files at best. Dead text. > > > > (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve, nor that > we should not improve our git integration.) > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier < > thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > > NorbertHartl wrote > > > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you > cannot use > > > > Versionner anymore > > > > > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > > > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for > private). I > > > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts > feels like > > > going back to the dark ages :/ > > > > > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a > BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > Cheers, > > > Sean > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:49, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Obviously it will better fit Pharo since its made to work with smalltalk code, but that does not make it any less terrible. Just because you have one implementation of something that does not mean its good. Its just means its there and it works. > > I dont know the internal, they are not documented anyway, there are some class comments here and there but thats pretty much it. I dont even remember when was the last time monticello got an updated, I mean a serious update not just a couple of bug fixes the 2 years I have been around. > > Secondly GUI is just plain awful, Smalltalk maybe be the first or one of the first to implement guis, but those implementations never ended up to something that would be approachable and easy to use on a day to day basis, some tools suffer more from this some less, Monticello is up there with the worse design. > > Thirdly the inability of the system to version control images , audio files and other assets it defeats the central purpose of smalltalk of everything being objects with a loud "Nope !" from Monticello "Only source code is". > > So its awesome that Smalltalk , and Squeak got its own version control system, that is easy to use and Pharo inherited it. Congratulations to people behind it. But the GUI needs to go, its a bad advertisement to Pharo, and we need something that is not stuck to dark ages as you correctly pointed but for the opposite reason. Because any way you try to turn Monticello you wont find a label written "modern" on it. The label you may find on it is more like "abandonware". > > Also there like a ton of OOP languages out there using git with no major problems, the problem with smalltalk is that smalltalk is an island. > > And the problem with islands is when you end having fun with them you feel stuck since they dont provide an easy access to the outside world. > > "Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text" > > Last time I checked Monticello used a format called mcz which is nothing more than a zip file containing st files, which are as you call it "dead text" files. Also I would like to remind you that git is used by the CUIS smalltalk to version control their images, I thought images are live code. > > Personally I dont see the diffirence between live and dead text. Its just text to me. The VM is the one that makes it live anyway. Yes and no. If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in it. When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes, methods, inheritance, it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form that you wrote them. Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been done, and was not successful, because you lose something essential by leaving the environment. The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be seen as an island that needs to integrate with others, there are degrees of openness. Your Blender or Python are islands too, just like SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are easy, some are hard(er). It all depends on your position. When have you last looked at the source code of git ? And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ? > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always smooth either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly when it was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had to drop SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. > > > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git with dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No offense to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of problems and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst tool of Pharo. > > No it is not. It is a version management system that understands our object and code model, a system that we control. Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text. > > (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve, nor that we should not improve our git integration.) > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > NorbertHartl wrote > > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot use > > > Versionner anymore > > > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels like > > going back to the dark ages :/ > > > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Dimitris Chloupis

Obviously it will better fit Pharo since its made to work with smalltalk code, but that does not make it any less terrible. Just because you have one implementation of something that does not mean its good. Its just means its there and it works. I dont know the internal, they are not documented anyway, there are some class comments here and there but thats pretty much it. I dont even remember when was the last time monticello got an updated, I mean a serious update not just a couple of bug fixes the 2 years I have been around. Secondly GUI is just plain awful, Smalltalk maybe be the first or one of the first to implement guis, but those implementations never ended up to something that would be approachable and easy to use on a day to day basis, some tools suffer more from this some less, Monticello is up there with the worse design. Thirdly the inability of the system to version control images , audio files and other assets it defeats the central purpose of smalltalk of everything being objects with a loud "Nope !" from Monticello "Only source code is". So its awesome that Smalltalk , and Squeak got its own version control system, that is easy to use and Pharo inherited it. Congratulations to people behind it. But the GUI needs to go, its a bad advertisement to Pharo, and we need something that is not stuck to dark ages as you correctly pointed but for the opposite reason. Because any way you try to turn Monticello you wont find a label written "modern" on it. The label you may find on it is more like "abandonware". Also there like a ton of OOP languages out there using git with no major problems, the problem with smalltalk is that smalltalk is an island. And the problem with islands is when you end having fun with them you feel stuck since they dont provide an easy access to the outside world. "Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text" Last time I checked Monticello used a format called mcz which is nothing more than a zip file containing st files, which are as you call it "dead text" files. Also I would like to remind you that git is used by the CUIS smalltalk to version control their images, I thought images are live code. Personally I dont see the diffirence between live and dead text. Its just text to me. The VM is the one that makes it live anyway. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always smooth > either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly when it > was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had to drop > SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. > > > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git with > dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No offense > to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of problems > and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI > clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst > tool of Pharo. > > No it is not. It is a version management system that understands our > object and code model, a system that we control. Git just manages blobs, > text files at best. Dead text. > > (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve, nor that we > should not improve our git integration.) > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier < > thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > NorbertHartl wrote > > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot > use > > > Versionner anymore > > > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels > like > > going back to the dark ages :/ > > > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a > BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always smooth either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly when it was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had to drop SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git with dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No offense to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of problems and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst tool of Pharo. No it is not. It is a version management system that understands our object and code model, a system that we control. Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text. (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve, nor that we should not improve our git integration.) > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > NorbertHartl wrote > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot use > > Versionner anymore > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels like > going back to the dark ages :/ > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > Thierry > > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Dimitris Chloupis

To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always smooth either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly when it was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had to drop SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git with dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No offense to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of problems and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst tool of Pharo. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > >> NorbertHartl wrote >> > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot >> use >> > Versionner anymore >> >> Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my >> personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I >> had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels >> like >> going back to the dark ages :/ >> > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a > BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > Thierry > > >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >>

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Thierry Goubier

2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > NorbertHartl wrote > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot > use > > Versionner anymore > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels > like > going back to the dark ages :/ > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. Thierry > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Dimitris Chloupis

"You are telling me I should watch the video but I got the impression you didn't read any of this thread before replying ;) Your video is not about the problems I have. It is a beginner video how to use pharo and git together and that's fine. I'm glad you did it. I'm after a workflow that can be used as developer as well as in a continuous integration server without introducing to many side effects. thanks, Norbert" The problem is that both of your problems are not directly related to git, Configurations and CI. Somewhate related yes but not directly. Configurations are not that related because git and github are more than capable into creating their own versions and their own releases and thank you for touching this subject because i want to mention it in my future video tutorial on pharo git. Git has several ways of doing this , git tags or branches, while github adds releases also to that. The nice thing about git and github is that it allow you to included also external assets, like images, sounds, pdf, database files , any kind of file into your repo. But you can also keep files outside the repo and still make github releases with them, since github releases can contain external assets that do not belong to the repo together with the repo in a single ZIP file. So this is why we use Baseline and not Configurations when we work with git. You will be correct to note that my video tutorial does not touch that part and that is more begineer orientated, but then that is easy for me to explain on a future video tutorial. CI is another tool altgother, git is for version control, CI is for project automatic packaging. It allow you to pull a repo from a git or any other kind of repo and run some tests on it and then build it or do all sort of stuff on it before packaging together. Its a whole another chapter on itself and a whole new set of video tutorials and my video wont help you there, because CI is not related to git and if I made a video tutorial how to use pharo + git with CI , it would have been a CI video tutorial and NOT a pharo+git tutorial. " I do not agree on that point. Myself and a lot of my friends use text documentation way more than videos. Maybe you see more video documentation because you work in visual stuff/3D. Graphical artists are more incline to use visual documentation as video." Definitely not the reason. I don't disagree with you that most people would prefer to have text documentation to video documentation. The nice thing about text documentation is easier to seek through and find what you want. But documentation is not dictated by its users but rather its creators. Video tutorial are far , far , far easier to make. Thus why they have exploded in popularity. To give you an example, lately I am learning C++ and looking into a specific kind of IPC. IPC has nothing to do with 3d graphics its Inter Process Communication, its what I use to make pharo talk to python with sockets. Now I am investigating the fastest form of IPC, shared memory and the most popular implementation of shared memory, memory mapped files. Its just a file that is uploaded to a part of the memory that then can be shared among diffirent applications (processes) and you dont have to move data around like you do with sockets and of course its a million times faster since its just direct memory manipulation with pointers. I wont even begin to describe my surprise about lack of documentation , text documentation about such a basic subject. Examples I found were mostly C and Linux and I was searching C++ and Macos. I go youtube, BOOM! tons of tutorials most of them the past year or two compared to very dated text documentation (my best bet are blog posts for up to date info). Messing around youtube with shared memory I found OpenMP shared memory, no idea what that was, I use google to search what the hell that is, reading website description about parrelism , makes a bit sense, but I want to know more, trying to find documentation same website recommend me to go back to YouTube to watch video tutorial by one of the dudes that made OpenMP. I have read text docs about threads in the past with python , the irony is that his video tutorial even though in C and using far more complex concepts are much easier to understand follow. And this is no small library made by a random guy this freaking Intel and OpenMP is probably the most popular library for multi threading currently and parrarely programming. I can go on, C++ 11 docs , youtube wins hands down, QT docs, youtube winds hands down , pretty much any python library you can imagine , youtube wins hands down. Even I , prefer text documentation to video tutorials . I downloaded the OpenMP pdf spec as I have pdfs for many libraries , QT , python etc. But I am forced to use YouTube more and more because hands down is by far the best resource of modern documentation, there is no comparison. And as documentation creator I have to confess I prefer making video tutorials 10 times more than writting text because, well I am lazy and its just way way way easier. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Le 26/01/2016 14:07, Dimitris Chloupis a Ã©crit : > > fair enough, its obviously your choice, but please note that text > > documentation is slowly dying. And no I am not talking about Pharo > > documentation. > > > > I do not agree on that point. > Myself and a lot of my friends use text documentation way more than videos. > > Maybe you see more video documentation because you work in visual > stuff/3D. Graphical artists are more incline to use visual documentation > as video. > > But in general, most of the people I know check a video to get a global > view of something then use textual documentation when they really want > to learn. And I think this is better to learn because you can go with > your own rhythm. But with a video it's harder. The rhythm is imposed. > > > As you probably aware of , book sales have plummeted the last decade > > that adsl connection speed has been rapidly rising. So there is not even > > a comparison between the quantity and quality of video tutorials > > compared to text tutorial which we see a very steady decline. Even > > University who have taken their courses online have solely preferred the > > video format to text documentation, although you can still get some text > > documentation for reference purposes. > > > > My video tutorial explain the whole process of working pharo with git, > > to my knowledge is the only tutorial that does this, it takes from how > > to do things with filetree, how to use baselines (i think I included > > that one but my connection is down and I cant check this) , how to use > > git (contrary to other pharo git documentation that assumes knowledge of > > git) and how to use an external gui client (something I highly recommend > > because there is no replacement for it with pharo ) . Sourcetree is used > > as an example , you can use any other git gui client instead. I chose > > not to present gitfiletree because at the time it had problem on both > > MacOS and Windows, dont know if Thierry has fixed those issues. > > > > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > > http://www.synectique.eu > > 165 Avenue Bretagne > Lille 59000 France > >

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 26.01.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > NorbertHartl wrote >> - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot use >> Versionner anymore > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels like > going back to the dark ages :/ > > same here Norbert

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Sean P. DeNigris

NorbertHartl wrote > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot use > Versionner anymore Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels like going back to the dark ages :/ ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Jan. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git workflow

by Cyril Ferlicot D.

Le 26/01/2016 14:07, Dimitris Chloupis a Ã©crit : > fair enough, its obviously your choice, but please note that text > documentation is slowly dying. And no I am not talking about Pharo > documentation. > I do not agree on that point. Myself and a lot of my friends use text documentation way more than videos. Maybe you see more video documentation because you work in visual stuff/3D. Graphical artists are more incline to use visual documentation as video. But in general, most of the people I know check a video to get a global view of something then use textual documentation when they really want to learn. And I think this is better to learn because you can go with your own rhythm. But with a video it's harder. The rhythm is imposed. > As you probably aware of , book sales have plummeted the last decade > that adsl connection speed has been rapidly rising. So there is not even > a comparison between the quantity and quality of video tutorials > compared to text tutorial which we see a very steady decline. Even > University who have taken their courses online have solely preferred the > video format to text documentation, although you can still get some text > documentation for reference purposes. > > My video tutorial explain the whole process of working pharo with git, > to my knowledge is the only tutorial that does this, it takes from how > to do things with filetree, how to use baselines (i think I included > that one but my connection is down and I cant check this) , how to use > git (contrary to other pharo git documentation that assumes knowledge of > git) and how to use an external gui client (something I highly recommend > because there is no replacement for it with pharo ) . Sourcetree is used > as an example , you can use any other git gui client instead. I chose > not to present gitfiletree because at the time it had problem on both > MacOS and Windows, dont know if Thierry has fixed those issues. > -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 165 Avenue Bretagne Lille 59000 France

Jan. 26, 2016