> Am 04.12.2014 um 23:59 schrieb Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>: > > Hi Thierry, > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Thierry Goubier <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > 2014-12-03 4:16 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. > +1
Plus: Introducing libgit2 will put additional burden for VM ports. Also there is a constant trial to get functionality out of the VM and into the image. This would be the opposite: new responsibility for the VM. Regards Andreas
