> 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?"
what means pushing changes upstream? to the original gofer repo? > 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.) Do we have the energy for that? Should we spent manpower? Who pay it and what else could they do instead? These are the questions I asked myself. I ***fight*** every day to push business around Pharo and to get credibility around our research and Pharo. This is a ***constant*** fight. Now I have no clue what is the vision behind squeak if any and why people doing business would use it instead of Pharo. But at the end of the day I cannot do anything about it so…. Now I'm concerned that it can have an impact and slow us. Just having large configurationOf that starts to get complex to read/change and tests makes me nervous. Stef PS: we are ants running around while elephants (python, ruby, Javascripts) are passing close by. Not making serious progress is death.
