> On 14 Jan 2017, at 12:58, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I fail to see what is user friendly about Monticello , I find its GUI and the > total workflow really bad, certainly the worst VCS GUI I have ever used. But > I will admit this is my personal taste and my opinion that can be safely > ignore.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I am pretty sure you don't speak for the majority of Smalltalk users in general. I don't understand what is bad about MC in the IDE: your code is easily put in packages, you look at changes at the method and class definition level, you compare and commit, look at incoming changes and that's it. Merging is just as easy or difficult as anywhere else. Is it perfect ? Does it have all features ? No, of course not. Remember that we have total control over its model and implementation in code. > StHub on the other hand is whole different situation. > > My criticism about StHub unlike Monticello are not opinion based, they are > fact based, StHub is unmaintaned , with the usual failures prompting Esteban > to reset the whole thing and lacking the most fundamental features like a > sophisticated search facility and any form of browsing. I could go on, but I > think the shortcomings are obvious. That's no bashing, its a statement of > facts. It is true that StHub is not actively maintained, but that does not change the fact that it just works. Indeed certain features were/are missing, nothing is perfect. Given the load is has to endure it is pretty stable (remember that SqueakSource collapsed under the Pharo load) even if it needs an occasional reset. Do I want something better ? Sure, people are working on that. > On the subject of file based code, I wonder what you use for Pharo VCS > because the default Pharo VCS is basically zip (mcz extension) files > containing source code files , the usual text files with the "st" extension. > If you mean the fact of actually worrying about the files themselves, the > only worrying you do with Git is for the gitignore file (if you actually use > one) that basically there can be listed what files or directories should be > ignored by Git. The rest are done automagically by Filetree, GitFileTree or > in my case my Git GUI client. No normal user looks or needs to look inside .mcz files. That is the whole point, it is based on a model/abstraction visible/manipulated in the IDE only. Again, I know git, I use git, even for Pharo. But the current approach is not good enough and it is far from stable or user friendly enough for prime time (I don't mean that git, GitHub or any other git tool is not good, I am talking about the interface with the Pharo IDE and workflow). Here is an example. I have this pull request open https://github.com/svenvc/ston/pull/17/files it is so big, changes so much that I cannot even begin figuring out what happened. I want my in-IDE tools that understand Smalltalk. One day (soon) the new tools (Iceberg ?) will allow me to do that, allow me to see git as just an opaque back end, allow me to remain inside the Pharo IDE (again, not that I can not or do not work in a terminal, far from it, I just don't want to for my Pharo workflow). Still, MC and its classic repositories will remain with us for a long time. > I also never said "Do not use Pharo VCS" , if that is what rocks your boat, > but to actual claim that Pharo VCS is more reliable, easier to use and more > powerful would require a huge leap of faith because from the very first > experience it pretty crystal clear that is not. > > And there is not just Git, there are plenty of other VCS out there that are > just light years ahead, some probably better than Git. I disagree. > But I have no problem if some people prefer to use the old VCS instead of > Git. I am not here to impose my workflow and I never stated that we should. > > As a matter of fact I do not mind any choice the community makes as long as I > have freedom to choose my own tools and my own workflow. I am pretty sure all options will remain open. > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2017, at 00:48, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > > <offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: > > > > On STHub, fortunately is live enough to let some of us being productive > > without the noise of git in front. > > So true. > > Let's stop bashing StHub: it works fine for 1000s of projects. I know we are > building something new and I am all for it, but as long as it is not as user > friendly as Monticello (all operations clean and simple in Pharo, reliably) > we are not there yet. > > The point is: we all know how to use git, but most Pharo developers don't > want to deal with file based Pharo code, at all, ever. > > Sven
