On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Eliot, > > Le 02/02/2016 21:54, Eliot Miranda a écrit : > .... > >> >> No it's /not/ the end of the story. The essential part of the story is >> how Monticello remains compatible and interoperable between dialects. I >> haven't seen you account for how you maintain that compatibility. As >> far as I can tell, you propose replacing the Monticello metadata with >> that from git. How do I, as a Squeak user with Monticello, ever get to >> look at your package again? As I understand it, moving the metadata >> from Monticello commit time to git means that the metadata is in a >> format that git determines, not Monticello. >> > > Yes. See below why. > > So I don't understand how on the one hand you can say "The Monticello >> metadata in a git repository is redundant and leads to unnecessary >> commit conflicts -- end of story ....", which implies you want to >> eliminate the Monticello metadata, and on the other hand you say you're >> keeping the Monticello metadata. I'm hopelessly confused. How does the >> Monticello metadata get reconstituted if it's been thrown away? >> >> What happens to the metadata in the following workflow? >> >> load package P from Monticello repository R into an image >> change P, commit via git to local git repository G >> load P from G into an image >> store P to R via Monticello >> > > It's not a scenario I've specifically worked on, but all the tech is > implemented / implementable to do that perfectly. > > The only thing that is problematic there is that the only safe history is > the one generated from git... there are so many MC packages with broken > history that, on mcz packages, you have to admit that it's not safe to base > things on their history. I'm sorry but I don't accept that. In the Squeak trunk we have history in our mczs that is correct. Certainly in VMMaker.oscog I have history that goes back a long time. If bugs have broken history then efforts should be made to repair that history. But you can't just write off Monticello history like that. But what does this imply to some package that starts off in a Monticello >> repository and then spends some time in gitland? Can I merge again? If >> I can I'm happy. If I can't, I feel sabotaged. >> > > You could. Just express your needs and wait until one of us has enough > free time to solve it for you, that is. > > Fine. Except merging is, IIUC, about method time stamps and ancestry. >> If that gets preserved then I'm happy. But for the life of me I haven't >> read an explanation that reassures me that these are being preserved. >> Do you see the roots of my fear? >> > > Of course. But that also project a bit what you think of the people > working on it... which may makes it a bit hard to answer. > > Thierry > _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
