On 29 January 2012 18:48, Philippe Marschall kus...@gmx.net wrote:
On 29.01.2012 17:02, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 29 Jan 2012, at 15:30, Philippe Marschall wrote:
As for scale.. monticello scales well.
No, it does not.
Please elaborate: I really can't see the difference between
Wow guys, it is nice for me to see that this thread raised some fruits
already and it seems it will even more in the future :)
Best regards
Janko
S, Dale Henrichs piše:
Otto,
This looks very interesting! Since you are still using Monticello, I think it
should be very straightforward to add
@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:02:51 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk for small projects only?
|
|
| On 29 Jan 2012, at 15:30, Philippe Marschall wrote:
|
| As for scale.. monticello scales well.
|
| No, it does not.
|
| Please elaborate: I really can't see the difference
No, it does not.
Please elaborate: I really can't see the difference between doing a merge
(either an easy one or a more diffucult one over multiple files, spread over
a couple of days, with intervening changes by others) using either
Monticello or Git.
The scalability limits of
Yes took me 10 hours to install GTK and it crashed on me…
So … I do not see this discussion going anywhere.
On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 29 Jan 2012, at 18:48, Philippe Marschall wrote:
The scalability limits of Monticello are well understood. PackageInfo
On 29.01.2012 17:29, Steve Wart wrote:
Big legacy projects are still using Envy for VisualWorks less for the
reasons listed below, but mostly because it's extremely difficult to
migrate to Store without doing a big bang and most of these projects
don't have 200+ developers anymore anyhow
-verbose-than-python-loc-a-modest-empiric-approach/
From: dimitris chloupis theki...@yahoo.co.uk
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2012, 18:58
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk for small projects only?
sorry could
On 29.01.2012 19:39, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
No, it does not.
Please elaborate: I really can't see the difference between doing a merge
(either an easy one or a more diffucult one over multiple files, spread over a
couple of days, with intervening changes by others) using either Monticello
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Philippe Marschall kus...@gmx.net wrote:
On 29.01.2012 17:29, Steve Wart wrote:
Big legacy projects are still using Envy for VisualWorks less for the
reasons listed below, but mostly because it's extremely difficult to
migrate to Store without doing a big
On 29.01.2012 19:39, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
No, it does not.
Please elaborate: I really can't see the difference between doing a merge
(either an easy one or a more diffucult one over multiple files, spread over a
couple of days, with intervening changes by others) using either Monticello
I often discuss with Frank Lesser about Smalltalk compiler internals. He
has written a Smalltalk VM (GVM), that is written in Assembler and jits
Smalltalk directly dynamically into Intel machine code, that is *faster*
than C in normal cases, expecially when fine tuned, able to run VS, VA,
Squeak,
But the goal of making the image smaller is congruent with the goal of
making Morphic smaller, which would be congruent with the desire for
Monticello to be scalable. So the solution should be smaller
packages, not more and bigger tools.
Besides, the measure of scale you've chosen is an build /
On 29.01.2012 22:31, Chris Muller wrote:
But the goal of making the image smaller is congruent with the goal of
making Morphic smaller, which would be congruent with the desire for
Monticello to be scalable.
What are you talking about? I chose Morphic because it was the first
package I found
On 29.01.2012 21:12, Guido Stepken wrote:
I often discuss with Frank Lesser about Smalltalk compiler internals. He
has written a Smalltalk VM (GVM), that is written in Assembler and jits
Smalltalk directly dynamically into Intel machine code, that is *faster*
than C in normal cases, expecially
On 01/29/2012 05:02 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
PS: one of the things that we should take from git, as many others have said on
this list, is selective commits.
If I ever get around to picking up Deltas again it would make a really
good tool to enable this on top of current MC (or any
On 01/29/2012 07:02 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
- GSOC 2010 had a proposal
l(http://gsoc2010.esug.org/projects/git-mercurial) - Goran, did this
get off the ground?
AFAIK, not really.
regards, Göran
16 matches
Mail list logo
