On 22 May 2013 12:49, stephane ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> ./pharo Pharo.image config filetree://`pwd`/../src/ >>> >>> Fails on trying to execute #mcRepositoryAsUser:withPassword: on a GenericUrl >>> instance inside Gofer. >> >> Yep, I'd agree with your assessment. Has Pharo forked Gofer, or does >> it still use Lukas Renggli's repository? > > We forked it. We cannot built a part of our infrastructure on a project that > can vanished in nature.
Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?" Because the latter option makes it more difficult/less useful for me to think about submitting changes to Gofer. I've no interest in arguing about the merits of either position: I'm quite clear on how _I_ feel about things (namely, push changes upstream), but I do not want to fight over _your_ feelings on the matter. I just want to know where Pharo stands on the issue of changes to codebases that might be shared between Pharo and Squeak. (Gofer, Metacello, FileTree for starters.) frank >> frank >> > >
