[Moose-dev] Re: Moving to GIT?

-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:00 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas offray@riseup.net wrote: > > Hi Thierry, > > Thanks for your comments. For me at this moment, Monticello is simple and nicely integrated, but maybe if I dig deeper I would discover the same as you. Surely, at that moment, I can take a look at GitFileTree and try to create something like FossilFileTree. For the moment my combination is Monticello for Pharo source code control and Fossil for source file control. Its working fine. What I'm advocating is to not convert git in a forced prerequisite for source control on Roasal or pharo. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > El 07/04/15 a las 13:58, Thierry Goubier escribió: >> Hi Offray, >> >> more debate about which DVCS to use! Cool. Needed. In particular, we >> need a Slice-based workflow. Suggestions welcomed :) >> >> First counter argument: the simplicity of Monticello. >> >> Yes, me too, when I started with Pharo, I was attracted by the >> simplicity and the fact it is nicely integrated... I integrated >> GitFileTree inside Monticello / Metacello / Gofer to keep that. >> >> But, then I discovered how Monticello does certain things. Then I >> discovered how Monticello was written. Then I discovered how people are >> using it. >> >> Now I know that when Monticello works correctly, this is by accident or >> because we use it for very simple projects (*). It has so many ways of >> getting basic operations wrongly :(. It doesn't scale well to the size >> of Pharo, for sure. And it has an impact on how you maintain multiple >> targets for a Pharo project, adding complexity inside the code to cope >> with Monticello tooling deficiencies. >> >> Second counter argument: do we have the choice of DVCS? >> >> Yes, if we have the hosting linked with it. No, if we consider workplace >> requirements. In short, my workplace has SVN and git. Given that, I take >> git. >> >> Mind you, I'll have a look at Fossil too. >> >> Thierry >> >> Le 07/04/2015 20:12, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit : >>> And talking about workflows compare the "cheat sheet" of Git[1] versus >>> the workflow of Fossil[2]. >>> >>> [1] http://www.ubuntu-mobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/79302966.png >>> [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Offray >>> >>> El 07/04/15 a las 12:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas escribió: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Please don't move source code to git, only bug tracker (or even try >>>> Bitbucket before or something else). >>>> >>>> I try to evade git as hell. Yep, I'm in a minority, but after trying >>>> git, svn, arch, bazaar, mercurial, trac and fossil I will keep the last >>>> one only (kind of a "GiHub in a box" on only 1.5 Mb self-contained >>>> simple to use and install binary). For the curious about Fossil at [1] >>>> you can find the workflow and at [2] some (biased) quotes about it >>>> versus git :-) (of course you could find this biased versus thing all >>>> the time for anything, but at least is a call to have a panoramic view >>>> before any choosing of a tool). >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow >>>> [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quotes.wiki >>>> >>>> One of the main reason that made git so popular was undoubtedly the >>>> Linux kernel community, but I don't understand why a tool that is suited >>>> for a thousand developers community and project should be forced into >>>> every development project and community. Its like a bazooka for killing >>>> mosquitoes with gratuitous complexity most of the times. >>>> >>>> I really like the integration, fine grained control and smoothness of >>>> Monticello in Pharo/Smalltalk for working with objects, not files. The >>>> only thing I'm missing is named and visual branches. But having a tool >>>> that has a cumbersome work flow, is difficult to install and all the >>>> time gets in your way is precisely the opposite of Monticello or any >>>> improvement we should be looking for on what we have now. Monticello (or >>>> fossil for that matter) is newbie friendly, Git is not. >>>> >>>> Please, only migrate to file based control system when it has the same >>>> smoothness of Monticello and hopefully with Git as an option, not >>>> before. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Offray >>>> >>>> El 07/04/15 a las 10:44, stephan escribió: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>>>>> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >>>>>> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? >>>>> >>>>> I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to >>>>> text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely >>>>> integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) >>>>> Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that >>>>> in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even >>>>> able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. >>>>> >>>>> Stephan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >>>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev