On 10 November 2016 at 06:07, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
On 11/8/16 11:04 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 November 2016 at 14:28, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
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 ;)
No my point was not that. My point is that it is important to pay attention and not to add more noise than necessary. Let us take the time and move alltogether.
If you want to get somewhere with this story, you don't want to wait till
everything will be ready. Transition will never start unless you force users to enter the minefield and let them clear the mines for you. Step by step. Many will blow themselves up, while some will manage to pass unhurt.. Because else, it will be always a minefield between you and the destination of your journey :)
I think that at the early stages of the transition you have to support both approaches ... when the new tools are in place and stabilized then one can consider ... the transition has already started so this is not a case where you need to force folks to change, but a case where you need to support the folks who choose to change ... it can be relatively low cost to keep the old tools around for quite awhile ... I would think ...
Right, as i said: make a minefield and watch those who wanting to cross it. And big mistake then to shout: hey i will never ever step on it.. This is bad idea, since you discouraging people from doing what you need :)
Dale
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.