On 22 May 2013 15:14, stephane ducasse <stephane.duca...@free.fr> wrote: >> 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?
Yes. >> 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. These are exactly the questions I ask myself too. Now if Lukas has abandoned Gofer, that's a different story: if the upstream maintainer has disappeared then forking Gofer is an act of survival. But that's not the answer that anyone's given me. "Look at what we've done" is all I've had so far. To be fair, sometimes the people who can answer (like yourself!) are busy doing other utterly necessary things. So: if Lukas' Gofer is effectively abandoned, then so be it: Pharo's fork is the new canonical repo (de facto: it's the one that's maintained), and Pharo's repo is where Gofer enhancements should go. I'm happy with that. > 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. And that's why I don't push Smalltalk as an option at work. It's too different, it has too many special requirements. That's exactly why I push the things I do. frank
