btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there. Esteban
> On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough :) > Which “unifying tools” are you referring ? > > I have followed very close your TOdE development… in a moment I was planning > a migration of it for pure-pharo, just… lack of time as always and then later > we started iceberg. > now, we are in the process of defining a process ;) who works for pharo and > is the moment to build the bridges we need, but in general I think that > staying "with a foot in two boats” can just work during a very short lapse of > time, after that, the stream continues going and if you do not finish your > jump into one of the boats you will be very fast in the water. > > What I mean is that we can help any transition, but at the end there is no > way of having a “nice, coexisting” ecosystem: we will have one OR the other, > or something that does not works at all, but we will not have seamlessly one > AND the other (which does not means people using monticello will be forced to > use git tools or vice-versa, just that you will need to chose one… right now > many (many for real) of our problems come from the attempt of keeping our git > support behaving as regular monticello… and that way of doing has a limit. A > limit I think we already passed. > > Anyway, if you can list what you think we will need for the transition, I > will be very glad to see what we can do :) > > Esteban > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 06:30, Dale Henrichs <dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. >>> >>> But I think there is another side of the coin as well. >>> >>> I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite >>> beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as >>> business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important >>> that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the >>> infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people >>> to exercise it as soon as possible. >> Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... >> there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see >> anyone working on them .... >> >> I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the >> proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier >> ... >> >> As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the >> old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a >> tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between >> the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and >> there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a >> fairly detailed guide ... >> >> The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I >> wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo >> was finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the >> mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues >> were going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction >> --- friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... >> >> I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I >> cannot write the tools for Pharo ... >> >> Dale >> >
