That is cool, but you/we can do that today, Pharo's full source is on github for quite some time now.
@Sebastian So we are on github, gemstone even more, cuis too. And Squeak is not. Did anything change dramatically ? There are thousands of languages and systems on github, I like it too, but just being there makes little difference. It is just a tool, a good one, but no more. On 27 Jun 2014, at 00:16, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > My favorite feature by far is the ability to look at the git history of the > methods themselves ... just the other day I had a bug that I was tracking > down, and by looking at the git history I discovered that a critical change > had been made to that method 1 year 12 days ago ... from that I was able to > look at all of the changes to all of the packages that had been made in the > same commit (the critical code had not only been moved to a different class > but the critical method had been moved to a separate package ... and from > that I was able to see that a bug had been introduced when not all of the > critical method was moved ... bug fixed ... > > Besides method versions, you can look at the git history for a class, package > or metacello project .... these are thing that would take a bit of work to > accomplish using just Monticello ... and if you were to attempt to do it, the > simplest thing to do would be to copy all of the packages into a git > repository and just use git:) Frank Shearar wrote some code that did > something along these lines a couple of years ago ... > > Dale > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: > another advantage of git is source code searches. It will essentially allow > pharoers to search pharo code online and not just being isolated in their > image. The search does not return just a whole library but even code > fragments. > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Sebastian Sastre > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 26 Jun 2014, at 14:56, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 26 Jun 2014, at 19:07, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that it is possible to most if not all of the git work support >>>> into the Smalltalk development environment ... I am doing that for >>>> GemStone with tODE[6] and I do find myself going to the go to the command >>>> line much less frequently ... but in tODE I have built a git merge tool >>>> and a git diff tool ... you can get the git history of a method from the >>>> browser, etc. >>>> >>>> Without a relatively high degree of tool integration it can be clunky to >>>> use git ... I am very willing to share what I've done/learned in tODE with >>>> Pharo tool builders and of course I think Thierry Goubier has actually >>>> been ahead of me in several different areas ... >>> >>> That is my analysis: it works today, 'perfectly', but there is not enough >>> tools support to make it as easy as Monticello as a whole is today. >>> >>> If these tools exist, or we can build them quickly based Dale's code, that >>> would be cool (I guess its all OSProcess underneath, which I find so/so, a >>> direct integration is better) that would be good. >>> >>> Would having this change our world fundamentally ? No, IMHO >>> Is it worth the effort, is the ROI there ? I don't think so >> >> I disagree here. I think moving our development to git will change deeply >> (for good) our community processes and then I think it totally worths the >> effort. > > > big +1 here > > The social benefit of having your code exposed in places like github > outweighs by at an astronomical scale the current lack of amazing mergetools > > If your code cannot be exposed without friction you’re done > > The noise of the jungle of > 3-new-libraries-per-day-that-can-be-installed-in-one-shot will make your work > invisible > > > > > >
