> Our “coding” atoms are methods, not classes. Having method per file we can 
> trace the history of changes with method detail, not class. 

That I understand.

> Now… you are complaining in the wrong problem. 

Well… Having one file per method seems to be very problematic after all. 

> FileTree meta information (who causes your merge problems) is needed *just* 
> to keep monticello compatibility. 
> That’s what is plain wrong and should be at least optional :)
> 
> I would happily integrate a “PlainFileTree” protocol (without monticello 
> information) as an option, if someone provides such extension. 
> Crap, I could make it myself if I have the time!… maybe next insomnia night :P

We can work on this next week. I am fed up to hear “why you guys are not using 
github?"

Alexandre


> 
>> On 08 Jul 2015, at 14:51, Alexandre Bergel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> This is frustrating….
>> 
>> I have followed the instruction given on 
>> https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/GitFileTree-MergeDriver
>> And I got:
>> 
>> ~/HackathonSattose2015> git merge master
>> pathToGitFileTree-MergeDriver/merge --version .merge_file_WAu4Yh 
>> .merge_file_WxznI2 .merge_file_ZmiIKE: pathToGitFileTree-MergeDriver/merge: 
>> No such file or directory
>> fatal: Failed to execute internal merge
>> 
>> Why do we need file tree? The simple fileout is not enough? Most of 
>> languages have one file per class. I do not see why we need to be different 
>> on that. Or maybe there is something obvious I am missing….
>> 
>> Maybe I will go back to Smalltalkhub afterall…
>> 
>> Alexandre
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Otto Behrens <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We have a .gitignore file that contains:
>>> version
>>> methodProperties.json
>>> 
>>> So, we don't bother.
>>> 
>>> The side effects of this are:
>>> Without methodProperties.json, you have the default author and
>>> meaningless timestamp.
>>> Without the version file, loading does not work properly. So we have a
>>> script that generates version files for each package before we load
>>> into the image. At first, this script counted versions for the package
>>> and got all the info from the git repository. But this was too
>>> expensive (because the file system became slow when traversing the git
>>> repo to find the meta data). So now, we just generate a version file
>>> with a fixed author, date & time now and a UUID & version number
>>> derived from the SHA1 of the .package directory.
>>> 
>>> We get all the meta-information directly from the git repo, using git
>>> tools. This can be better with GitFileTree.
>>> 
>>> So we really just use basics of Monticello & Metacello and do the rest
>>> externally from the image. We need to explore the available tools
>>> more.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>> 
>>>> Do I still need to press the merge button in Monticello when I am working 
>>>> on a filtree git repository?
>>>> I understand that no since the merging has to be done by Git, and not by 
>>>> monticello.
>>>> 
>>>> I tried to not do the merge in monticello, but I get some conflicts when 
>>>> doing the git merge. For example:
>>>> 
>>>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in 
>>>> Hackathon.package/monticello.meta/version
>>>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in 
>>>> Hackathon.package/HProject.class/methodProperties.json
>>>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in 
>>>> Hackathon.package/HClass.class/methodProperties.json
>>>> 
>>>> Why do we need this methodProperties.json and version files? Shouldn’t git 
>>>> handle this?
>>>> 
>>>> How should I merge these files? Any experience?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alexandre
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.




Reply via email to