2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Esteban,
I cut out the rest, because I agree with all your points, except for...
2016-11-07 9:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
[ ... ]
Replacing Monticello with git goes in this direction:
[ ... ]
And this one I don't understand. A smooth, git / iceberg oriented transition over Monticello/Metacello is perfectly doable... As Dale explained. A nice Iceberg gui reworking / making git usable is perfect.
Well⦠I disagree with this. All my experience says the opposite: this is a convenience usage that in the long way does not match (the thing that we simulate mcz packages do not work⦠and makes things a lot harder to maintain later). Nico has worked a lot on this, maybe he has something to say.
I'd like to. Simulating mcz? That I don't get it. I've seen many things done in Pharo that have a strong NIH tag attached to them. So I allways take the 'I reimplement everything because I know better' with a grain of salt. Nico has a huge task.
But why make the transition so hard? You get Stef angry on a Sunday morning because he can't find things anymore... even if he is a strong proponent of the strategy he complains about ;)
Stef was angry because he needs to clone, pull, commit, push and make a PR to collaborate⦠and because that process is not correctly documented/tooled. Sadly, this will not change⦠it will always be like that. What we can do is easy the task creating the tools⦠but that will need to be there.
Agreed. It's about time, by the way. Pharo lost some usability on the SLICES/mcz front over the years, and its painfull when teaching Pharo. Thierry