On 22 May 2013 13:13, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 22/05/2013 14:02, Frank Shearar a écrit : > >> 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?" > > > Now, I'd have a question related to that. Where should I push my changes ? > > Or give up on updating Gofer and use eval instead of config for my package > loading. > > >> 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.) > > > I'll start then to worry about the fact I'm relying on FileTree in the > first place, then, since this is not a part of the Pharo infrastructure. > > But I couldn't find a way to get my git integration to work otherwise.
Exactly. I'm halfway through supporting FileTree directly in Squeak's Installer (currently stalled as I figure out why SSL broke), and I'd intended to make Gofer support FileTree directly once that was done. But where to push the changes? frank
