2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: > > 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>: > >> [ ... ] >> >> 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. >
I'd like to. Simulating mcz? That I don't get it. I've seen many things done in Pharo that have a strong NIH tag attached to them. So I allways take the 'I reimplement everything because I know better' with a grain of salt. Nico has a huge task. > > > 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. > Agreed. It's about time, by the way. Pharo lost some usability on the SLICES/mcz front over the years, and its painfull when teaching Pharo. Thierry
