On 22 May 2013 16:42, stephane ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe the things I do regarding the fork because of personal >> conversations with people close to the decision. > > Fun because we are the people who took the decisions and we never got a real > discussions > so far. So this means that so far you got discussions with people that > believe that they > know why we forked but may be these people have only a partial view on it. ;D
I'm going back on my word by engaging with this. I do not think either you or Marcus are egotists. I do think it is a crying shame that the split occurred. I don't understand the reasons, and by now they really don't matter. I've heard things from someone here about stuff that happened, but I can only take him at his word, because whatever happened happened off-list. > People should simply look at what our acts! We are not doing Pharo for us but > because we believe in a smalltalk > way of programming. But we want more much more than an old ST-80 system. As do I. My issue with the way I've seen Pharo operate is this: Pharo uses some project. The original maintainer or maintainers don't respond quickly enough for Pharo's liking, so Pharo forks the repo and abandons upstream. That means that while Pharo's needs might be met, everyone else is worse off. The upstream maintainers become disillusioned with trying to keep up with the the churn in the base image, and give up. This has happened time and again. Now I completely understand the need to get stuff done NOW. What I'd like to see is some effort made to play nicely with the other communities. (And I think that keeping Camillo and Max and friends gainfully employed on improving git integration is an excellent way to do this - hosting on github makes pushing changes upstream so easy that we can hopefully avoid this pattern of fork-and-abandon.) frank
