2014-12-01 11:21 GMT+01:00 Hilaire <[email protected]>: > Le 27/11/2014 11:29, kilon alios a écrit : > > My personal opinion on Github and Pharo is that it already works great > > with Pharo. The workflow with filetree is exactly the same as other > > languages that gives the added advantage that you can use all the > > powerful tools you use with other languages for commiting to git and > > github. I have not experienced any kind of issue of problem using github > > with Pharo nor my experience has been any worse than other languages. > > > > With git, don't you lost the capability to browse the history of changes > in your code? >
Not with GitFileTree. You get an as good or even better history (i.e. garanteed merge: its common to see long project histories in mcz with missing versions in history, with sometimes merge failures in Monticello as a consequence). You can also browse changes in subsets: all versions of a method across hundreds of packages versions, you could track all versions of a class, etc... All this is local and synchronized to the remote: you have a complete local history, which makes querying the history a lot easier (than downloading hundreds of mcz(s) from smalltalkhub). It is also convenient to be able to commit properly without an internet connection. A true competitor to Pharo+git is a database-based system with replication / merge. I think the Squeak side has it (I remember Eliot talking about that). Thierry > > Hilaire > > > -- > Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu > iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu > > >
