On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 04:49:07PM +0100, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > On 13 Jan 2018, at 15:13, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Sven, > > > >> On Jan 13, 2018, at 6:01 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 05:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Isn't it important to preserve the ability to exchange code between > >>> Pharo, Squeak and Cuis? Don't you care that the VM development is > >>> directly affected by this? Is the VM and plugin support not important to > >>> Pharo? > >> > >> Eliot, > >> > >> Not trying to minimise your contributions (we all love the VM), and I know > >> that you favour collaboration, but > >> > >> (1) what non-trivial code is actively maintained from a single code base > >> between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis ? > > > > Alien > > Hmm, not that active. And it requires Pharo/Cuis to use an 'older' loading > mechanism (from their perspective evolving to git SCM). > > Other than that, a very short list. You know just as well as that it is close > to impossible to do this (Seaside and FUEL are the only real counter > examples, and even there it is a lot of work). >
Indeed, Seaside and FUEL are good examples. My own experience is with OSProcess/CommandShell, which I develop in Squeak, version control in Monticello, and intermittently try to maintain for Pharo and Cuis. As you say, this can be difficult to do. Multiple version control approaches do not make the job any easier, and I can assure you that it does not make it any more enjoyable. I am probably not a good example, because I am just one person, not a development team. But for what it's worth, that is my experience. Dave
