Yes :)
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:00:02PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
> thanks dave :)
> I just wanted to say that sometimes forking and pushing is the best way to
> make progress and it does not imply that
> people are stealing, just wanted to go faster? whatever.
> Stef
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:27 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:09:42PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> >>
> >>> Issue 5796: Integrate OSProcess
> >>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5796
> >>>
> >>> Are we doing this? If so, are we forking it (I hope not), or just
> >>> integrating updated package versions as Dave releases them?
> >>
> >> This is an interesting question. I know that Camillo and Damien or
> >> somebody else made pipeable working.
> >> I suggested that the code is sent to dave for integration in his package.
> >> (I do not know if this was done). Now if we really want to have a
> >> strong interoperation with the rest of the world either OSProcess has a
> >> pharo branch and a nice packaging
> >> or may be this is time to fork. I could understand that dave does not have
> >> cycles to handle that.
> >>
> >> Forking in itself is not a bad process when it serves a clear purpose.
> >> Look at Pharo. We did it not just for fun (and it was never an easy
> >> solution
> >> after all the effort we did since years to promote Squeak - books, videos,
> >> lectures?.) but to accomplish a vision.
> >>
> >> So if we get a really hyper cool system to execute commands like ` in ruby
> >> then I want it immediately at the price of forking :)
> >>
> >> Stef
> >>
> >
> > PipeableOSProcess should be working in Pharo now.
> >
> > A Metacello configuration to load OSProcess plus part of CommandShell
> > (PipeableOSProcess and related classes) might be helpful for Pharo. I'm
> > not working on that, so that might be a good thing for someone to do.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
>
