On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2/3/16 10:53 PM, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> >> Le 03/02/2016 23:58, Dale Henrichs a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/03/2016 02:34 PM, Thierry Goubier wrote: >>>> >>>> Le 03/02/2016 22:51, Eliot Miranda a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Thierry Goubier >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't. You presuppose. >>>> >>>> I write tools that work with Monticello repositories, not just yours. >>>> I have to do with what is given to me. On a general level, as a mcz >>>> user, I'll just have to consider that you are as susceptible to be >>>> trusted as with any other mcz producer. This means not much... >>> >>> >>> ... And this is the reason why I am inclined to favor option 3, which >>> records the package version history as it existed at the point it was >>> copied into a git repo. When copied back out from the git universe, >>> create a version history that starts with the original version history >>> and generates a history of the package in git .... >> >> >> Which is not very difficult to do given how GitFileTree is implemented. >> And I agree this may well be the way to go. But ... >> >>> Correct or not, the Monticello version history should be preserved .... >> >> >> I wonder about that. The property of the Monticello version history is >> that it has value when you can access the versions listed in it. If you mix >> repositories like that, unless you maintain a link to the previous mcz >> repository, pre-git versions can't be accessed. So, most of the time, what >> we do with a project moved under git is to clone the previous repository, >> not take just the current head. >> >> (you'll notice, by the way, that vcs usually work that way when moving >> from, say, CVS to git - you move the entire repository, not just the latest >> version). >> >> In short, the question would really be: >> 1- should we invest into making that integration of past history a selling >> point (but I foresee issues down the road; I've only described one so far, >> and I have seen others) >> or >> 2- into making a better "clone" of a package history, timestamps and >> everything when moving a complete repository to git? >> >> Honestly, I'd consider 1- to be the easiest to implement. 2- there is >> already some code floating around. > > Thierry, > > My take on this is that we are not trying to "fix" Monticello. > > The developers who prefer to use Monticello should continue to use > Monticello and the existing Monticello tools should continue to be > available. Any new formats should provide a migration path from Monticello > and any new tools like a `project list` tool should accommodate projects > based on both git and Monticello repositories. > > This particular branch of the conversation has been aimed at trying to > resolve the tension that has been created by including Monticello metadata > in FileTree repositories and I think that "option 3": including past history > in the FileTree repository, but not updating the version history for each > git commit is a workable compromise --- there are always "issues down the > road" whether or not we see them and that shouldn't keep us from trying to > evolve:) > > FileTree was invented (props to Otto Behrens) to smoothly integrate the use > of disk-based repositories into a Monticello development environment > dominated by Monticello tools. > > Thierry your work building on the original FileTree has gone a long way > towards making git a viable development option for Pharo. > > I think that you'd agree that the next step of evolution for "git-based" > development involves improved tool support and I would think that we should > turn our focus in that direction... > > Dale >
Pertinent is Joel's description of how Microsoft Excel's tipping point [1] in competing against Lotus123 was when it became able to export to Lotu123 format. Making it easy for people to move from git back to Monticello lower the barrier for entry for people to use git. [1] Scroll down to the second "tipping point" http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html cheers -ben
