> On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:49, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Obviously it will better fit Pharo since its made to work with smalltalk > code, but that does not make it any less terrible. Just because you have one > implementation of something that does not mean its good. Its just means its > there and it works. > > I dont know the internal, they are not documented anyway, there are some > class comments here and there but thats pretty much it. I dont even remember > when was the last time monticello got an updated, I mean a serious update not > just a couple of bug fixes the 2 years I have been around. > > Secondly GUI is just plain awful, Smalltalk maybe be the first or one of the > first to implement guis, but those implementations never ended up to > something that would be approachable and easy to use on a day to day basis, > some tools suffer more from this some less, Monticello is up there with the > worse design. > > Thirdly the inability of the system to version control images , audio files > and other assets it defeats the central purpose of smalltalk of everything > being objects with a loud "Nope !" from Monticello "Only source code is". > > So its awesome that Smalltalk , and Squeak got its own version control > system, that is easy to use and Pharo inherited it. Congratulations to people > behind it. But the GUI needs to go, its a bad advertisement to Pharo, and we > need something that is not stuck to dark ages as you correctly pointed but > for the opposite reason. Because any way you try to turn Monticello you wont > find a label written "modern" on it. The label you may find on it is more > like "abandonware". > > Also there like a ton of OOP languages out there using git with no major > problems, the problem with smalltalk is that smalltalk is an island. > > And the problem with islands is when you end having fun with them you feel > stuck since they dont provide an easy access to the outside world. > > "Git just manages blobs, text files at best. Dead text" > > Last time I checked Monticello used a format called mcz which is nothing more > than a zip file containing st files, which are as you call it "dead text" > files. Also I would like to remind you that git is used by the CUIS smalltalk > to version control their images, I thought images are live code. > > Personally I dont see the diffirence between live and dead text. Its just > text to me. The VM is the one that makes it live anyway.
Yes and no. If git compares two versions, it does not understand what is in it. When Monticello compares versions, it knows about classes, methods, inheritance, it can explain diffs in the same structured (browsable) form that you wrote them. Putting Smalltalk in plain text files can be done, has been done, and was not successful, because you lose something essential by leaving the environment. The island argument is also a bit too easy: any platform can be seen as an island that needs to integrate with others, there are degrees of openness. Your Blender or Python are islands too, just like SAP, Microsoft and Oracle. Some connections/interfaces are easy, some are hard(er). It all depends on your position. When have you last looked at the source code of git ? And be honest, do you find git always easy to use ? > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:59, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > To be fair my experience with pharo and git have been not always smooth > > either. I have the VM crashing again and again completely randomly when it > > was trying to pull SmaCC as dependency for my project Ephestos, had to drop > > SmaCC and moving my python type parsing at python side. > > > > But I find it ironic someone using Monticello, trying to equate git with > > dark ages, you cant get more dark ages than monticello, frankly. No offense > > to people who made it , its great that is in there but its full of problems > > and bad designs and cant even begin to be compared with Github and GIT GUI > > clients. Monticello is according to my personal opinion by far the worst > > tool of Pharo. > > No it is not. It is a version management system that understands our object > and code model, a system that we control. Git just manages blobs, text files > at best. Dead text. > > (This does not mean it is perfect, nor that it cannot improve, nor that we > should not improve our git integration.) > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > 2016-01-26 15:11 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com>: > > NorbertHartl wrote > > > - I need to use BaselineOf instead of ConfigurationOf. Thus you cannot use > > > Versionner anymore > > > > Unfortunately. This is the biggest drag for me after switching all my > > personal projects to git (GitHub for public and BitBucket for private). I > > had gotten spoiled by Versionner and hand-editing MetaC artifacts feels like > > going back to the dark ages :/ > > > > Well, I guess copying the baselines generated by Versionner into a > > BaselineOf is probably a way to do it. > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-git-workflow-tp4874067p4874221.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >
