> On 04.12.2014, at 09:07, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2014-12-04 8:27 GMT+01:00 Max Leske <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > >> On 04.12.2014, at 07:24, Thierry Goubier <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Le 03/12/2014 14:02, Ben Coman a écrit : >>> Eliot Miranda wrote: >>>> >>>> [and apologies for being deliberately incendiary but I *hate* the >>>> movement away from tools in Squeak/Pharo. It is a movement towards >>>> stasis and death, and personally I'm enjoying life too much]. >>> >>> So what we need is a native Smalltalk git ;) >> >> We need a better-than-git Smalltalk thing :) >> >>> Yes I know... more work with limited resources, but native git its being >>> done in other places... (not sure how successfully) >> >> I can give you a head start. There is some Smalltalk code to reuse; it's >> called FileSystem-Git, or FS-Git. >> >> https://github.com/dalehenrich/FSGit <https://github.com/dalehenrich/FSGit> >> >> https://github.com/theseion/fs-git <https://github.com/theseion/fs-git> >> >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/FileSystem-Git >> <http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/FileSystem-Git> >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/Git-FileSystem >> <http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/Git-FileSystem> >> >> They do lack a bit of activity. > > That’s because they should be superseded by the libgit2 bindings. > > If I'm not mistaken, they originally were what Ben suggested: a complete git > reimplementation in Smalltalk via a FileSystem abstraction layer.
The idea is great and works quite well. There are two problems however and they are the reasons I chose to go with bindings: - such an implementation is very hard to maintain and the chance of introducing bugs is just off the charts - performance and memory allocation need a lot of working around (and praying) > The Pharo "whole" export to github would be based on that work, along with > that 'almost like FileTree, but not the same' file format. Not quite. The export simply produces (FileTree) artifacts and writes them to disk. There is no hard dependency to FileSystem-Git (although that might have been the plan at some point). > > But correct me if I got that wrong. > > > This is the right repo: > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/FileSystem-Git > <http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~FileSystemGitDev/FileSystem-Git> (the github > version is outdated). > > Thanks for the reminder (and the hard work you're putting into the libgit2 > bindings), Thank you for your patience :) > > Thierry > > >> >> Thierry >> >>> >>> Javascript >>> https://github.com/creationix/js-git <https://github.com/creationix/js-git> >>> >>> Java >>> http://eclipse.org/jgit/ <http://eclipse.org/jgit/> >>> >>> Haskall >>> http://stefan.saasen.me/articles/git-clone-in-haskell-from-the-bottom-up/ >>> <http://stefan.saasen.me/articles/git-clone-in-haskell-from-the-bottom-up/> >>> https://github.com/vincenthz/hit <https://github.com/vincenthz/hit> >>> >>> Python >>> https://www.samba.org/~jelmer/dulwich/ >>> <https://www.samba.org/~jelmer/dulwich/> >>> >>> Perl >>> https://metacpan.org/pod/Git::PurePerl >>> <https://metacpan.org/pod/Git::PurePerl>
