We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough :) Which “unifying tools” are you referring ?
I have followed very close your TOdE development… in a moment I was planning a migration of it for pure-pharo, just… lack of time as always and then later we started iceberg. now, we are in the process of defining a process ;) who works for pharo and is the moment to build the bridges we need, but in general I think that staying "with a foot in two boats” can just work during a very short lapse of time, after that, the stream continues going and if you do not finish your jump into one of the boats you will be very fast in the water. What I mean is that we can help any transition, but at the end there is no way of having a “nice, coexisting” ecosystem: we will have one OR the other, or something that does not works at all, but we will not have seamlessly one AND the other (which does not means people using monticello will be forced to use git tools or vice-versa, just that you will need to chose one… right now many (many for real) of our problems come from the attempt of keeping our git support behaving as regular monticello… and that way of doing has a limit. A limit I think we already passed. Anyway, if you can list what you think we will need for the transition, I will be very glad to see what we can do :) Esteban > On 7 Nov 2016, at 06:30, Dale Henrichs <dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> > wrote: > > > > On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Stef, >> >> I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. >> >> But I think there is another side of the coin as well. >> >> I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite >> beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as >> business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that >> we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the >> infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people >> to exercise it as soon as possible. > Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... > there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see > anyone working on them .... > > I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the > proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier ... > > As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the > old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a > tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between > the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and > there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a > fairly detailed guide ... > > The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I > wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo was > finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the > mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues were > going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction --- > friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... > > I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I > cannot write the tools for Pharo ... > > Dale >
