> On 04.12.2014, at 10:09, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: > > "I’m not sure we need to discuss that, since there already is FileSystem-Git > which *is* an implementation of Git in Smalltalkt..." > > is ? really ? wow I am impressed I thought reimplementing git in smalltalk > would be a huge effort. Pharo surprises me once more :)
Well, it’s not complete, far fromit actually. Git is huge… (also, see my response to Thierry) > > so the problem now is to build the tools on top of it to utilize git ? Yes, but the tools should use libgit2 bindings, not the Smalltalk implementation. > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Max Leske <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 04.12.2014, at 09:47, kilon alios <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > What are the benefits that justify the effort to reimplementing git in > > smalltalk ? > > > > I’m not sure we need to discuss that, since there already is FileSystem-Git > which *is* an implementation of Git in Smalltalkt... > > >
