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