Hi, On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
Perhaps this would be preferable to not create confusion in the future. Would this be doable? >> 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 Did you try to contact the original authors? >> 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 :) No stress. My intention was not to criticize, but merely to understand. I can live with this, but I think this particular decision was taken a tiny bit too lightly :). For example, inZip: is still around in the original form. But, if you insist on having the short version of the selectors, the easy thing would be to provide compatibility methods. I opened an entry: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5442 Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
