Hi Thierry, On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2014-12-03 4:16 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>: > >> >> Yes, but *I* care about the Monticello metadata. IMO its *better* than >> the git metadata. >> > > Eliot, you'll have to do better than just IMO on that one. > Quite right. One benefit is that Monticello metadata, at least per-method time stamps, are available for introspection inside the image. Just today I was alerted of some bad code by a particular author and it was very convenient to read all the methods by that particular author, which helped me find another problem. I also like the free frorm of the middle of method timestamps; I can and do annotate with labels for specific refactorings. Another benefit is that Monticello is amenable for scripting much more easily than git. I've been working on the SPur bootstrap fro a while now. It is essentially complete. What the bootstrap does in Monticello is construct patched versions of four packages, substituting specific methods with replacements. Each patched package inherits both from its patched ancestor and the package that was patched (a ladder like structure). This allows Spur to keep up-to-date automatically w.r.t. Squeak trunk. I'm also delighted that work like Chris Muller's version server is out there. This is very nicely integrated to allow me to find out which package versions contain versions of a particular method or class definition. Some of us work with *both*, and have code for going back and forth, so the > *better*; bah. > > I also happens to know how long it takes to parse hundreds of monticello > metadata files... and I wasn't impressed with the result. > Yes, but this can be reengineered. Most things can be optimized. This could be with a little effort. What's needed is to generate and maintain momentum. That's what worries me about git integration. It's a slippery slope towards giving up Monticello and just using git. And git itself will one day be viewed as old-hat. Monticello should be easy to keep evolving. It's in Smalltalk few chrissake. > >> What's really lacking in Monticello is a) it's not high school so one >> can't preen in front of the world on github and b) it has no support for >> external files. Well, a) will be solved by growing up and b) can be solved >> by building the solution. I know what I'd rather do. >> >> >> [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]. >> > > You then have noticed that those threads are about working on tools? > Yes, and that's why I'm writing to the thread. I hope that work on integrating foreign file support, and integrating things like Chris Muller's version server continues in the Pharo community. More than anything I hope that Monticello remains a bridge between the Squeak and Pharo communities. > > > Thierry > > > > -- best, Eliot
