> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@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 <esteba...@gmail.com > <mailto:esteba...@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. > > 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. Esteban > > Thierry
