On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27 Nov 2014, at 14:43, [email protected] wrote: > > At times, mczs still come handy for some merges... > > And Smalltalkhub is good as a safe heaven for collecting packages that are > otherwise scattered all around. > > > nothing that a real catalog/centralised package manager alla > npm/apt-get/etc cannot do it. > using a package manager as a catalog feels to me like hammering a screw. > Sure, I am with you on that. I am yum - ing all day long :-) But as you know, the Pharo Catalog descriptions are quite lonely. I'd like to take a moment to tackle that one. In fact, there are several concerns that I find (and other members on the list share the feeling) must be addressed for commercial development. e.g.: Stronger RDBMS support, AAA, Logs, ... But this not really Pharo per se, but a onion ring around it. As you guys are doing 4.0, that onion ring is making 3.0 work for commercial stuff. I think that we'll always be one version behind, which is ok. > > Is there a reason why Smalltalkhub would not stay working nicely? > > > because we do not have the strength/willing to maintain it. > and each day we are: farther from “state of the art” source management, > and farther from state of the art javascript, etc. (which is the reason why > sthub > Ok, thx. > > Are we talking about using bigger boxes here? Or is it a deeper issue? > > > keeping up-to-date a system like sthub is a lot of work, and takes a lot > of time. > personally, I prefer way more to spend my time in things that will have a > real impact in the community (like having a modern vm) than lose it trying > constantly to catch up with what others (with a lot more resources) already > did. > Sure, modern vm anytime! The git worklflow is superpowerful and that's what people use these days. In a MOOC I do, all exercises and slideware are in Github... > > each time I start a sub-project, my first question is: “this stuff will > have a multiplier effect in the community?” and second question is “do we > have to doit from scratch, or can we take advantage of other projects?”. As > a maintainer, and being conscious of our limitations, this are the driving > forces I find positive to work. > (and of course, most times I do not start sub-projects at all, I just jump > into a burning place and try to do my best to fix it… not always very > successfully :P) > Nah, you rule. I wish I was as good as you are. > > so, coming back to less “philosophical” question: > > 1) do we need a state-of-the-art source code management? YES. > 2) do we want to spend the few manpower we have on running into a worst > solution of what is already around? I think no. > > libgit2 would provide that without going through Github driver hoops, which is sweet and more welcoming to newcomers. > Esteban > > > Phil > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:52 PM, kilon alios <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I forgot to add that git comes with excellent gui clients that are far >> more powerful and elegant that what Pharo offers currently . >> >> If you are user of emacs there is magit , really powerful gui client and >> very popular among emacs users. >> >> For gui client I have used quite a lot SmartGit >> >> http://www.syntevo.com/smartgit/ >> >> and recently a fellow python developer introduced me to Sourcetree >> >> http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ >> >> Both are free for non commercial projects. They require a license for >> commercial use but they are relative cheap. They come with diff tools, easy >> commit access , branching, merging and tons of stuff to make life easier >> for complex scenarios and they integrate well with bitbucket and other >> online repositories besides github. >> >> But even from command line there is a lot of room for automation by >> creating bash scripts to make commits one step process. >> > > >
