Re: [Pharo-users] Tabular Data Viewer

2013-06-19 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
On 19 Jun 2013, at 02:26, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4674116/are-there-any-open-source-spreadsheet-implementations-in-smalltalk-which-are-use Thanks Hernán, that looks quite good as well - but I am good for now. > El 17/06/2013 11:17, Sven Van Caekenberg

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git

2013-06-19 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
Hi I do not know your experience with smalltalk and pharo but pay attention because there are really few people working using git and pharo. I would be you I would concnetrate on the smalltalk part first, Stef On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Bahman Movaqar wrote: > Hmm...let's say I have the pro

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git

2013-06-19 Thread Goubier Thierry
Hi Stephane, but, if you have to introduce Pharo as a business-ready tool in a git workflow (or any other vcs for that matter), it's better to say that you can do it, no? Thierry Le 19/06/2013 11:13, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : Hi I do not know your experience with smalltalk and pharo but pa

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git

2013-06-19 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
On 19 Jun 2013, at 15:02, Goubier Thierry wrote: > Hi Stephane, > > but, if you have to introduce Pharo as a business-ready tool in a git > workflow (or any other vcs for that matter), it's better to say that you can > do it, no? The current git workflow is not suitable for first time Pharo

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git

2013-06-19 Thread Goubier Thierry
Le 19/06/2013 15:04, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit : On 19 Jun 2013, at 15:02, Goubier Thierry wrote: Hi Stephane, but, if you have to introduce Pharo as a business-ready tool in a git workflow (or any other vcs for that matter), it's better to say that you can do it, no? The current gi

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo + git

2013-06-19 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Goubier Thierry wrote: > Hi Stephane, > > but, if you have to introduce Pharo as a business-ready tool in a git > workflow (or any other vcs for that matter), it's better to say that you can > do it, no? sure I was just trying to help to avoid to get exposed to t