On 2012-03-06, at 14:22, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > Filesystem is part of the Pharo 1.4 image and the code resides in the > Pharo 1.4 repository. > > Essentially, as Lukas pointed out, this is a fork. There is absolutely > nothing wrong with that, especially if you want to base the core on > it.
right, it's the fork of FileSystem for pharo :), maybe can name the project PhileSystem :D > However, the problem is what happens with the changes. Do they flow > back to the original author, or do you want to fork completely? Of > course, a collaboration requires at least two parties to work together > :), but it would still be cool to get the position clear. - changes don't flow in this case, although this would be preferable for fixes > Of course, some changes are internal and they have little impact on > the end user, but sometimes the public interface changes, too, and > that is more problematic. Case in point are the onDisk and inMemory > methods which were renamed to disk and memory, respectively. This > basically breaks any previous code that is using Filesystem. Is there > a particular reason for doing this (the original names seem perfectly > legitimate), or was it just a mistake? that was done by me on purpose :) just because I don't care much about english grammar in this case (in vs on) plus it's shorter. and generally you don't prefix getters in smalltalk. But I should introduce the backwards compatible methods again, since I did these changes mainly for myself (since I was for quite some time the only developer on the project). It was not my intention to kill projects that depend on it :) best cami > Cheers, > Doru > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"
