The idea is neat! Usually, I write my README.md through the interface of GitHub. But indeed, if Git and inline documentation are central to Pharo, then having a mini-pillar in the base image would make sense.
Anyway, Pillar definitely needs to be improved. Everything that goes in that direction is welcome! Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to propose including Pillar in the Pharo image by default. > > My reasoning: > > Since we are moving to git, and most people will use github, gitlab, and the > likes, it is expected to include a README.md file (or possibly more extensive > documentation) alongside the code. > > Which means that people will (and are) writing the README mostly by hand, > which of course is problematic, as e.g. code snippets can get deprecated, > screenshots become outdated, etc. > > As Pillar tries to address these problems, it would make sense to me to > include Pillar in the image by default, as anyone using git (which eventually > should be everyone) will most likely benefit from writing their documentation > in Pillar. > Similarly using Pillar would open an avenue to provide the documentation > in-image, e.g. one exporter for html/markdown, and another one for Pharo's > Help system. > > I could, of course, install Pillar every time, but considering thats extra > effort and in the extra time I can fix the issues by hand, I don't have such > an incentive to use Pillar for this. > > Questions & Problems: > > I don't know by how much would pillar increase the image size. Perhaps there > could be (a) "lightweight Pillar" (that would include just pillar & markdown > exporter), or (b) we would have different images for different uses. > > By different images I mean something along the lines of > a) developer image - meant to be directly used by developers to create their > software > b) production image - as a foundation for running systems / users > > Does this make sense? > > Peter >
