Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: > Hi Dale, > > 2016-11-10 6:04 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs > : > >> >> >> On 11/8/16 7:09 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> >> Hi Dale, >> >> 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs > >: >> >>> [ snip ... ] >>> >>> yes I think this is the area whe

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Hi Dale, 2016-11-10 6:04 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs : > > > On 11/8/16 7:09 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs > : > >> [ snip ... ] >> >> yes I think this is the area where a Metallo Project Browser comes into >> play. The technology for committing

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 10 November 2016 at 06:07, Dale Henrichs < dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > > > On 11/8/16 11:04 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > > > On 7 November 2016 at 14:28, stepharo wrote: > >> >> [ ... ] >> >> >> And this one I don't understand. A smooth, git / iceberg oriented >> transition over

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 11/8/16 11:04 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: On 7 November 2016 at 14:28, stepharo > wrote: [ ... ] And this one I don't understand. A smooth, git / iceberg oriented transition over Monticello/Metacello is perfectly doable... As Dale explained. A nic

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 11/8/16 7:09 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: Hi Dale, 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs >: [ snip ... ] yes I think this is the area where a Metallo Project Browser comes into play. The technology for committing the dirty packages i

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 7 November 2016 at 14:28, stepharo wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > 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. > > But why make the tra

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Hi Dale, 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs : > [ snip ... ] > > yes I think this is the area where a Metallo Project Browser comes into > play. The technology for committing the dirty packages in a a > ConfigurationOf has been around for quite awhile, but a tool that unifies > the "multi-pa

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 11/7/16 11:42 AM, Nicolas Passerini wrote: 2016-11-07 15:30 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier >: Thierry, If I'm not mistaken, Esteban is referring to the fact that in FileTree we are still using Monticello to do the load of the packages a

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 11/7/16 11:30 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: Hi Dale, 2016-11-07 12:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs >: On 11/7/16 7:15 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: 2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>: On 7 Nov 20

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Hi, On 07/11/16 02:50, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: [...] 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 o

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 16:26 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier : > >> The problem I found is that in order to recreate sequential numbers, you >> have to load all commits into the image. >> > > Why? GitFileTree doesn't need to do that at all! Well, you know the code: > it just ask git log to rebuild the parent / chil

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 16:13 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Passerini : > > I started creating version names using the unix date (the number of > seconds since 1970), which allows me to provide version numbers without > complex calculations and without breaking Monticello. > > Numbers are not nice but we do not use them a

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 15:59 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier : > 2016-11-07 15:42 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Passerini : > >> >> 2016-11-07 15:30 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier : >> >>> Thierry, If I'm not mistaken, Esteban is referring to the fact that in FileTree we are still using Monticello to do the load of the package

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 15:42 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Passerini : > > 2016-11-07 15:30 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier : > >> Thierry, If I'm not mistaken, Esteban is referring to the fact that in >>> FileTree we are still using Monticello to do the load of the packages and >>> even when we are running metadataless, we en

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 15:30 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier : > Thierry, If I'm not mistaken, Esteban is referring to the fact that in >> FileTree we are still using Monticello to do the load of the packages and >> even when we are running metadataless, we end creating fake meta data to >> simulate an mcz ... you

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Hi Dale, 2016-11-07 12:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs : > > > On 11/7/16 7:15 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > > > 2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano : > >> >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier >> wrote: >> >> Hi Esteban, >> >> I cut out the rest, because I agree with all your points,

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

[ ... ] 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. But why make the transition so hard? You get Stef angry on a Sunday morning

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

On 11/7/16 7:36 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: On 7 Nov 2016, at 11:28, Dale Henrichs wrote: On 11/7/16 4:52 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there. Esteban On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: We are developing Iceberg… and I know

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 11/7/16 7:15 AM, Thierry Goubier wrote: 2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano >: On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Esteban, I cut out the rest, because I agree with all your points,

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

On 11/7/16 6:42 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote: Am 07.11.2016 um 10:40 schrieb Dale Henrichs : On 11/7/16 2:59 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: Hi Dale, I think I missed your mails. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Let’s aim for a chat sometime next week. Would this work for you? You're not

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> > Cuis basically delegates everything to git and use one file per package. > > yes thats the direction I want to go with this, if possible kill any kind of meta information and turn everything to Smalltalk code. Even fileout contains meta data. > > He has a nice lib interface targetting both m

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 11:28, Dale Henrichs > wrote: > > > > On 11/7/16 4:52 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there. >> >> Esteban >> >>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>> >>> We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

On 11/7/16 4:52 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there. Esteban On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough :) Which “unifying tools” are you referring ? The main unifying tool is a Metacell

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 11:05 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano : > > On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier > 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 : > >> [ ... ] >> >> Replacing Monticello with git goes

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:43, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > Its clear that I want to live outside the image. > > Its clear that others want to live inside the image. > > Its clear that I am a tiny minority , if not the only one. I don't understand how you can say that after so many years. The s

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:03, Thierry Goubier 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 >: > [ ... ] > > Replacing Monticello with git goes in this direction: >

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

2016-11-07 10:43 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis : > " > Aready done. Look for Jan Vrany tools or Cuis. IMHO, not convincing to me > (Jan's format is even more conflict-oriented than Filetree metadata, but it > is a design goal). Cuis git repository is a mess to me; very hard to build > a coherent 're

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:42, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> >> Am 07.11.2016 um 10:28 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano : >> >> >>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> >>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:13, Thierry Goubier wrote: I've seen over the years many, many attempts a

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

" Aready done. Look for Jan Vrany tools or Cuis. IMHO, not convincing to me (Jan's format is even more conflict-oriented than Filetree metadata, but it is a design goal). Cuis git repository is a mess to me; very hard to build a coherent 'rebuild a new Cuis here' process on it like I routinely do o

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

> Am 07.11.2016 um 10:40 schrieb Dale Henrichs > : > > > > On 11/7/16 2:59 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Dale, >> >> I think I missed your mails. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. >> Let’s aim for a chat sometime next week. Would this work for you? > You're not the only one :) Ye

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> Am 07.11.2016 um 10:28 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano : > > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> >> >>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:13, Thierry Goubier wrote: >>> >>> I've seen over the years many, many attempts at replacing the filetree >>> format. I used to contest and debat

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

On 11/7/16 2:59 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: Hi Dale, I think I missed your mails. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Let’s aim for a chat sometime next week. Would this work for you? You're not the only one :) Yes it would ... Monday is a travel day so Tuesday or beyond would work for

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:13, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> >> I've seen over the years many, many attempts at replacing the filetree >> format. I used to contest and debate, now I just let them go and die a few >> months later. Because

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:13, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > I've seen over the years many, many attempts at replacing the filetree > format. I used to contest and debate, now I just let them go and die a few > months later. Because none of the alternatives are clearly superior, and it > is not wort

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Hi Kilon, 2016-11-07 9:57 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis : > > Git requirements is basically non existent, it mainly works with text > files and with less support for binary files. Pharo does not need anything > but text files to be ready for Git. We had text files since forever with > fileouts and

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

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 : > [ ... ] > > Replacing Monticello with git goes in this direction: > > [ ... ] > And this one I don't understand. A smooth, git / iceberg oriented transition over M

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:22 PM Stephan Eggermont wrote: > Kilon wrote: > > If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub > > We are not close to doing that. We'll need > Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And > that assumes we automatically migrate all o

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Hi, If anyone *ever* thought we are moving to git because is the new stuff, I need to clarify several things: 1) you don’t know me :) 2) git is not new-cool stuff since a couple of years so is not that we are jumping into anything fancy shiny new (we should be trying to use docker as montice

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there. Esteban > On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > 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 plann

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

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 proc

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Mcz repos are useful. STH storage works nicely, that's more the frontend which si bitrotting. I actually have a local FTP based thing on my Synology and it is neat and needs no time to work. Did you ever look into Zinc and see there is also a server there for that? Now, GitHub is better for sha

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Hi Dale, I think I missed your mails. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Let’s aim for a chat sometime next week. Would this work for you? Cheers, Doru > On Nov 7, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Dale Henrichs > wrote: > > > > On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Stef, >> >> I thin

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

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 signifi

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

On 11/6/16 9:05 AM, stepharo wrote: Hi I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there is a value in using common tools to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we are getting balkanize. It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use git

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

On 6 November 2016 at 17:21, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > Kilon wrote: > > If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub > > We are not close to doing that. We'll need > Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And > that assumes we automatically migrate all ope

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

And for us, without Git :-). Offray On 06/11/16 13:27, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: I agree Pharo works great for me with Git apart from the file tree issue. On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 20:22, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas mailto:offray.l...@mutabit.com>> wrote: Hi, This thread derived on us

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

The commit messages, say nothing about the commits On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 17:47, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > On 6 Nov 2016, at 16:27, Dimitris Chloupis > wrote: > > > > A biggy one is the pharo repo of the pharo image on github. Its a mess. > > > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-c

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

I agree Pharo works great for me with Git apart from the file tree issue. On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 20:22, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This thread derived on using GitHub, the transitions to it, the mismatch > between the Smalltalk code model and the files

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Hi, This thread derived on using GitHub, the transitions to it, the mismatch between the Smalltalk code model and the files code model. I would like to offer another view. Pharo is working pretty well here. We have just finished our seventh edition of the Data Week workshop+hackathon. This t

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Le 6/11/16 à 17:21, Stephan Eggermont a écrit : Kilon wrote: If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub We are not close to doing that. We'll need Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And that assumes we automatically migrate all open projects. W

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Le 6/11/16 à 17:12, Tudor Girba a écrit : 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 sign

Re: [Pharo-users] about balkanisation

Kilon wrote: > If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub We are not close to doing that. We'll need Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And that assumes we automatically migrate all open projects. First we need good workflows that also work for com

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

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 a

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

> On 6 Nov 2016, at 16:27, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > A biggy one is the pharo repo of the pharo image on github. Its a mess. > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commits/6.0 > > seriously, Github makes us visible , this does not look good at all. why not ? how is this different

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub. Smalltalkhub should have been dead years ago. Its unmaintained anyway apart from when it crashes and Esteban fixes. Smalltalkhub has been a constant state from crashes since 2011 when I joined Pharo community. Give people a month to move t

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Dimitris better reread what I wrote because you missed it. My point is let us minimize the mess and act in a concerted way. Do you think that we would pay 9 months of dev + esteban that will started to push there too and base all our dev on it if we would not believe that moving to git is s

Re: [Pharo-users] About balkanisation

> It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like > that you can say that you use latest hyper cool > > features), but I would like to ask especially people building libraries > to pay attention that it is important > > that other people can contribute back easily and that th

[Pharo-users] About balkanisation

Hi I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there is a value in using common tools to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we are getting balkanize. It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like that you can say tha