On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> wrote:
> Kilon wrote >> I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little >> justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub >> or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier. > > I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: > - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a > distributed version control system; > - it doesn’t support working at the right granularity; > - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the > directions github is taking. > It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we don’t > like at any time. > It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; > - we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We should > be using a P2P, > bittorrent like system for version control. github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git. With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal. I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
