let me give you the thinking of someone that comes from another language

"What is this ? Ah Pharo

What features it has ? Ah thats some nice cool features, live coding looks sweet

How about version control ? Hmm no its too weak and their website for hosting repos is problematic in many cases

Maybe I could use git which I am familiar with ? Ah yes.... but wait there are many limitations

How about big repos that git excels at ? Nope it crashes Pharo VM.

Hmm.. ok Pharo looks like�� nice toy .... will go back to my language of choice and use it from time to time for foolish experiments. Notice one thing here, the user never cares about the flexibility of the API. Bottom line its not about git, or mecurial, or svn. Its about giving something that the user can use and right now when it comes to version control Pharo is light years behind.

Things get popular not because they have nicely designed APIs, they become popular and rightly so and wisely so because they work. Simple as that.

I hope at last version control is addressed seriously because its a real pity Pharo not to be able to use git when there are toy languages like brainfuck that interface better with it or other version control system.

I am not against the idea of an abstraction API for Version Control , great idea do that, but first let get things working properly so we dont get people scratching their heads on git merges or people struggling to find out why sthub is down once again.��

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:07 PM EuanM <euanmee@gmail.com> wrote:

We want a system of small objects with loose-coupling, and simple webs
of message-sends.�� This allows us power, flexibility, maintainability
*and* the opportunity to accommodate new requirements.

We always need to bear this in mind.�� Build for the inevitable changes
of environment and changes of requirement.�� You Ain't Gonna Need it
(YAGNI) is often true, but well-factored code is *always* good.

On 30 November 2015 at 17:02, EuanM <euanmee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, personally, I far prefer Mercurial.�� Which also dethroned SVN.
>
> Mercurial has all the power of Git, while providing a more usable API.
> My mind works like a Smalltalker's, not like Linus's.
>
> It's true, some of the more abstruse functions of git require a longer
> chain of user actions in Mercurial in order to achieve the same end.
> But typically, the more common functions are more memorable in
> Mercurial than in git, and my typical use-cases for a DSCM system are
> less involved than that of the Linux core.
>
> On 29 November 2015 at 19:00, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And there lies the trap.
>>
>> If you end up making something that works with everything, you will create
>> something that just works with everything instead of something that works
>> very well with one thing. Right now Git is by very far the undisputed king
>> of version control and has completely dethroned SVN.
>>
>> Ironically the things that make git integration in pharo so hard is all the
>> thing that are there to decouple it from git , like filetree metadata , or
>> continuous support for mcz and monticello.
>>
>> In the end you cant have your cake and eat it too. We will have to choose
>> between very good integration with git or average / mediocre integration
>> with multiple backends.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:15 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I would like for Pharo is to avoid to be bound to a given back-end
>>> for its versionning.
>>> This master is a step in the right direction
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/hpi/source/Technische_Berichte/HPI_54.pdf
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>