On 2013-05-22, at 14:36, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 13:20, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2013-05-22, at 14:02, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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?" >> >> well, check on how much we changed in detail and them come back. > > Sorry, was that supposed to be an answer? I must go find out how much > work you've done before guessing whether you've forked and abandoned > upstream? abandon or progress that's the question here. > Like I said: What I want to know is this: if I want to make a change > to infrastructure common to multiple Smalltalks, does Pharo expect me > to submit special unique snowflake additions to Pharo AND to upstream? well if you expect us to push anything upstream then have a look at the massive amount of changes that happened since pharo 1.0. There IS a reason pharo forked from squeak...
