About balkanisation
Locked
123
123
 
|
Hi
I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there is a value in using common tools to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we are getting balkanize. It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like that you can say that you use latest hyper cool features), but I would like to ask especially people building libraries to pay attention that it is important that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy way to load/contribute. Today I experienced Bloc - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( Yes you can say that monticello sucks yes it is terrible yes we all fell like Cobol programmers but at the end of the day. Yes the herb is always greener elsewhere. Yes yes yes. Let us take some facts. We managed pharo and moose with it over the last 8 years successfully and Pharo and moose are not 5 packages together from what I can see. So pay attention about the decision you take. Now we will provide git support (this is 8 months that nicolas is exclusively working/thinking/dreaming about that) and that we are doing experiments (Guille is managing the bootstrap in github). Now when everybody will have its own little project lost on github (I do not count the amount of time I do not find pillar on github because I forget that it is called pillar-markup), what will we do. So we need an infrastructure to handle this and christophe is working on this. I think that you should consider the accidental complexity as something that we can minimise by using patterns and common practices. Now you can think that I'm an idiot and that I have no vision (be my guest) but we should pay attention because we are a small community. Stef |
|
It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like Indeed Git and Github are hypercool and trendy but the important question here is why. Why C++ is so popular, why Java is so popular, why Javascript is so popular, Why python is so popular. When you ask why you understand that being hyper cool, its not a thing, its not something you can glance over its a practical need we needed a language that is super fast with ability to handle complex code, C++ we needed a language that is focused on enterprise development , Java we needed a language to make web developent, Javascript we needed a language to simplify C/C++/Java and C# without losing libraries, Python we needed a superfast decentralized versions control systems for both code and other assets , Git we needed a place to host online open source projects with git , Github we needed the perfect language , the perfect libraries a tool to end all tools , Nothing each one of those hypercools excel in what you are doing, in many cases they are more than one, not because they are easy but because they are powerful. To go back to old alternatives would be like going back to caves because you have hard time opening the front door of your house. You may choose to go back to the cave but do not expect people to follow you. You preach people not to leave the comforts of the nest because its safe and it easy, but in the end I find that as wasted potential. The question I am asking myself everyday how far can Pharo go with taking advantage of modern technology, how far Pharo can go if it gains access to the same exact resources as all other programming languages ? What would it mean for the average Pharo developer to be able to use not just web dev libraries but any library, any tool , any programming language , any time ? If you can answer these questions then you know why embracing git and github is the right choice even if it pains you, even if makes you lose sleep sometimes or even if you find it hard. Just because Smalltalk is an island, Pharo does not need to be one. Afterall .... Pharo is not Smalltalk, or so we claim Its time to put our money where our mouths are. |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Dimitris
better reread what I wrote because you missed it. My point is let us minimize the mess and act in a concerted way. Do you think that we would pay 9 months of dev + esteban that will started to push there too and base all our dev on it if we would not believe that moving to git is stupid! Can you read what I write? Stef Le 6/11/16 à 13:05, stepharo a écrit : > Hi > > I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there > is a value in using common tools > > to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we > are getting balkanize. > > > It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like > that you can say that you use latest hyper cool > > features), but I would like to ask especially people building > libraries to pay attention that it is important > > that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy > way to load/contribute. > > Today I experienced Bloc > > - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. > > - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds > super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( > > > Yes you can say that monticello sucks yes it is terrible yes we all > fell like Cobol programmers but at the end of the day. > > Yes the herb is always greener elsewhere. Yes yes yes. Let us take > some facts. > > We managed pharo and moose with it over the last 8 years successfully > and Pharo and moose are not 5 packages together from > > what I can see. So pay attention about the decision you take. > > Now we will provide git support (this is 8 months that nicolas is > exclusively working/thinking/dreaming > > about that) and that we are doing experiments (Guille is managing the > bootstrap in github). > > Now when everybody will have its own little project lost on github (I > do not count the amount of time I do not find pillar on github because > I forget > > that it is called pillar-markup), what will we do. > > So we need an infrastructure to handle this and christophe is working > on this. > > I think that you should consider the accidental complexity as > something that we can minimise by using patterns and common practices. > > Now you can think that I'm an idiot and that I have no vision (be my > guest) but we should pay attention because we are a small community. > > Stef > > > > > |
|
|
If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub. Smalltalkhub should have been dead years ago. Its unmaintained anyway apart from when it crashes and Esteban fixes. Smalltalkhub has been a constant state from crashes since 2011 when I joined Pharo community. Give people a month to move their projects in github and then kill it. At worst give only read access the same way squeakers made the old squeaksource read only. Another thing that must be fixed is the file format chosen for git, the idea to fragment source code to a billion diffirent source code files each one containing a method or class definition is problematic both for viewing those files offline and online. There is very little chance that if I give a link to my github repo to an outsider to take a look at my code that he will have the patience to navigate 10 files to read the code for 10 methods. Even the class comment is a separate file. I don't even have the patience to do that. Make an organisation for people to join, those are made inside github we have one for the books we have none for the community , this way we can gain easier visibility of source code and it will also make easier for people to contribute to third party code. Move the meta repos of Pharo to Github and remove "meta" from the name. Instead name them Pharo Packages Catalog as we do inside the image. One repo for all versions of Pharo. Branches can be used to separate versions. Add to Playground the ability to paste code directly to Gist. This is a low priority one but its a nice touch. A biggy one is the pharo repo of the pharo image on github. Its a mess. seriously, Github makes us visible , this does not look good at all. If you do all the above you will have reduced the pain of working with Git by 80%. On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:37 PM stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: Dimitris |
Re: About balkanisation
|
|
> On 6 Nov 2016, at 16:27, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A biggy one is the pharo repo of the pharo image on github. Its a mess. > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commits/6.0 > > seriously, Github makes us visible , this does not look good at all. why not ? how is this different from a multi file commit in any other language ? |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Hi Stef,
I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. But I think there is another side of the coin as well. I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. To give an example. When the first version of Iceberg was announced, I started to use it for a couple of projects. I stumbled across problems that prevented me from working for several weeks. I could have easily switched to SmalltalkHub, but I did not. I connected with Nicolas and we worked through those problems. Btw, Nicolas is doing a wonderful job, and people should not take this for granted. He tends to be shy, so if you see him around, please give him a hug and let him know that we count on him. Or better yet, use Iceberg for your projects and send him your feedback :). I am sure that there are more problems ahead, and the only way to go through them is committing to go through them. This will push us back for a while, but I really believe in the promise once we get on the other side. I actually think that GitHub is not really a good match for Pharo from a conceptual point of view (the mismatch between what it offers and what we need is quite large), but it is an engineering decision that makes perfect sense for the future. So, yes, we should take GitHub with a grain of salt, and make it a goal to not change much our concept of what makes sense for Pharo. For example, we should not give up on having to resort to the file system. That is why it is so important to make Iceberg (this is not for you Stef because I know you know it, but for others :)). And I certainly agree that we should look for sane patterns, but as it goes with patterns, they emerge out of practice. I think we should aim for limiting the time of being in between the two worlds. It will not be pleasant, and we can only do it if we stick together and go through it as soon as possible. Cheers, Doru > On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:05 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi > > I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there is a value in using common tools > > to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we are getting balkanize. > > > It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like that you can say that you use latest hyper cool > > features), but I would like to ask especially people building libraries to pay attention that it is important > > that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy way to load/contribute. > > Today I experienced Bloc > > - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. > > - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( > > > Yes you can say that monticello sucks yes it is terrible yes we all fell like Cobol programmers but at the end of the day. > > Yes the herb is always greener elsewhere. Yes yes yes. Let us take some facts. > > We managed pharo and moose with it over the last 8 years successfully and Pharo and moose are not 5 packages together from > > what I can see. So pay attention about the decision you take. > > Now we will provide git support (this is 8 months that nicolas is exclusively working/thinking/dreaming > > about that) and that we are doing experiments (Guille is managing the bootstrap in github). > > Now when everybody will have its own little project lost on github (I do not count the amount of time I do not find pillar on github because I forget > > that it is called pillar-markup), what will we do. > > So we need an infrastructure to handle this and christophe is working on this. > > I think that you should consider the accidental complexity as something that we can minimise by using patterns and common practices. > > Now you can think that I'm an idiot and that I have no vision (be my guest) but we should pay attention because we are a small community. > > Stef > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Presenting is storytelling." |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Kilon wrote:
> If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub We are not close to doing that. We'll need Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And that assumes we automatically migrate all open projects. First we need good workflows that also work for complex projects. That includes cross-platform projects like Seaside Stephan |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Le 6/11/16 à 17:12, Tudor Girba a écrit : > Hi Stef, > > I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. > > But I think there is another side of the coin as well. > > I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. Yes this what we decided. > To give an example. When the first version of Iceberg was announced, I started to use it for a couple of projects. I stumbled across problems that prevented me from working for several weeks. I could have easily switched to SmalltalkHub, but I did not. I connected with Nicolas and we worked through those problems. Btw, Nicolas is doing a wonderful job, and people should not take this for granted. He tends to be shy, so if you see him around, please give him a hug and let him know that we count on him. Or better yet, use Iceberg for your projects and send him your feedback :). Yes people should try but should pay attention for libraries. > I am sure that there are more problems ahead, and the only way to go through them is committing to go through them. This will push us back for a while, but I really believe in the promise once we get on the other side. I actually think that GitHub is not really a good match for Pharo from a conceptual point of view (the mismatch between what it offers and what we need is quite large), but it is an engineering decision that makes perfect sense for the future. So, yes, we should take GitHub with a grain of salt, and make it a goal to not change much our concept of what makes sense for Pharo. For example, we should not give up on having to resort to the file system. That is why it is so important to make Iceberg (this is not for you Stef because I know you know it, but for others :)). > > And I certainly agree that we should look for sane patterns, but as it goes with patterns, they emerge out of practice. > > I think we should aim for limiting the time of being in between the two worlds. It will not be pleasant, and we can only do it if we stick together and go through it as soon as possible. This why I mentioned that we should pay attention to create different versions > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > >> On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:05 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there is a value in using common tools >> >> to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we are getting balkanize. >> >> >> It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like that you can say that you use latest hyper cool >> >> features), but I would like to ask especially people building libraries to pay attention that it is important >> >> that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy way to load/contribute. >> >> Today I experienced Bloc >> >> - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. >> >> - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( >> >> >> Yes you can say that monticello sucks yes it is terrible yes we all fell like Cobol programmers but at the end of the day. >> >> Yes the herb is always greener elsewhere. Yes yes yes. Let us take some facts. >> >> We managed pharo and moose with it over the last 8 years successfully and Pharo and moose are not 5 packages together from >> >> what I can see. So pay attention about the decision you take. >> >> Now we will provide git support (this is 8 months that nicolas is exclusively working/thinking/dreaming >> >> about that) and that we are doing experiments (Guille is managing the bootstrap in github). >> >> Now when everybody will have its own little project lost on github (I do not count the amount of time I do not find pillar on github because I forget >> >> that it is called pillar-markup), what will we do. >> >> So we need an infrastructure to handle this and christophe is working on this. >> >> I think that you should consider the accidental complexity as something that we can minimise by using patterns and common practices. >> >> Now you can think that I'm an idiot and that I have no vision (be my guest) but we should pay attention because we are a small community. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Presenting is storytelling." > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Le 6/11/16 à 17:21, Stephan Eggermont a écrit : > Kilon wrote: >> If you really want to embrace Github , kill Smalltalkhub > We are not close to doing that. We'll need > Monticello support indefinitely, and at least a few years two-way. And that assumes we automatically migrate all open projects. We decided that iceberg will support one way from MC -> github but not the inverse because we do not have the ressources. > > First we need good workflows that also work for complex projects. That includes cross-platform projects like Seaside We should be able to manage Pharo with the external projects composing it. Moose Seaside should be working too. So yes this is why guille spent some time building cases and evaluate solutions (submodules vs subtrees vs under one umbrella) with pull requests between subprojects and the rest.... > > Stephan > > > > |
Re: About balkanisation
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Hi,
This thread derived on using GitHub, the transitions to it, the mismatch between the Smalltalk code model and the files code model. I would like to offer another view. Pharo is working pretty well here. We have just finished our seventh edition of the Data Week workshop+hackathon. This time we explored the fossil DCVS and make some templates with mustache to export/publish some data visualizations. The infrastructure we have now doesn't get in our way, installing the software with Catalog, updating with Monticello, syncing changes while the workshop is happening, working with teapot, tealight and the mustache binding all that went pretty smooth. The supporting documentation for these tools was of great help. Nicolas is making a good job in making the transition to Git/GitHub smooth, but at the same time he is having a critical perspective on git and its workflow (which is not the best for every community, case or project) and I think that's healthy, so we don't need to make Pharo conform to git. So I just want to add that there are other places and people (mostly not developers), here in Colombia, South America, that really appreciate what the Pharo ecosystem, in its current form, is offering: its fluid, uniform, connected, self contained, and powerful. It is a breath of fresh air in the current overcomplicated technology. I just hope that the migration and evolution preserve and maximize that. Keeping the equilibrium between fast feedback, change, diversity, balkanisation, visibility and hyper trendy is difficult, but hopefully the core experience that Pharo is providing, will guide such equilibrium, and continue to serve its several communities around the world. Cheers, Offray On 06/11/16 07:05, stepharo wrote: > Hi > > I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there > is a value in using common tools > > to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we > are getting balkanize. > > > It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like > that you can say that you use latest hyper cool > > features), but I would like to ask especially people building > libraries to pay attention that it is important > > that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy > way to load/contribute. > > Today I experienced Bloc > > - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. > > - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds > super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( > > > Yes you can say that monticello sucks yes it is terrible yes we all > fell like Cobol programmers but at the end of the day. > > Yes the herb is always greener elsewhere. Yes yes yes. Let us take > some facts. > > We managed pharo and moose with it over the last 8 years successfully > and Pharo and moose are not 5 packages together from > > what I can see. So pay attention about the decision you take. > > Now we will provide git support (this is 8 months that nicolas is > exclusively working/thinking/dreaming > > about that) and that we are doing experiments (Guille is managing the > bootstrap in github). > > Now when everybody will have its own little project lost on github (I > do not count the amount of time I do not find pillar on github because > I forget > > that it is called pillar-markup), what will we do. > > So we need an infrastructure to handle this and christophe is working > on this. > > I think that you should consider the accidental complexity as > something that we can minimise by using patterns and common practices. > > Now you can think that I'm an idiot and that I have no vision (be my > guest) but we should pay attention because we are a small community. > > Stef > > > > > |
|
|
I agree Pharo works great for me with Git apart from the file tree issue.
On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 20:22, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2
The commit messages, say nothing about the commits On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 17:47, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: About balkanisation
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
And for us, without Git :-). Offray On 06/11/16 13:27, Dimitris Chloupis
wrote:
I agree Pharo works great for me with Git apart from the file tree issue. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
On 6 November 2016 at 17:21, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: Kilon wrote: Oh, come on! Throw away everything you had.. and start using something new and trendy, rinse and repeat. Profit! :) Stephan Best regards,
Igor Stasenko. |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
On 11/6/16 9:05 AM, stepharo wrote: > Hi > > I would like that you think a bit about our community and that there > is a value in using common tools > > to share and develop common libraries. Because to me it feels like we > are getting balkanize. > > > It may look super cool and be hyper trendy to use github (because like > that you can say that you use latest hyper cool > > features), but I would like to ask especially people building > libraries to pay attention that it is important > > that other people can contribute back easily and that there is an easy > way to load/contribute. > > Today I experienced Bloc > > - I cannot load code and I cannot contribute. > > - I saw mdl with a mixture between smalltalkhub and github (sounds > super hyper cool) and I saw paul not being able to contribute :( now and have been using a "mixed system" during that entire time ... My message has been consistent that in order to make a smooth transition that you need some specific tools, now the fact that you guys are _not_ building those tools has been concerning me for some time now ... I sent mails at the beginning of this year a) describing the tools to the best of my ability and b) offering to help ... it seems that you are somehow blaming git/github for this problem ... and as I come to this discussion late others are blaming smalltalkhub ... I don't think it is necessary to move everything to github, as I said, I have been using a "mixed system" for 5 years ... and I think that the problem lies in the lack of the proper tools ... of course your problems with Bloc may be actually totally unrelated to packages, but it is clear to me that you are frustrated with the environment ... and that is a tools problem! I can and want to help. I have had good discussions with the Pharo team, but I am afraid that I am not able to get my ... to me ... simple points across ... and it is frustrating to me that I am not able to successfully communicate the simple solutions that I see ... I will repeat that Pharo is missing some very critical tools that I consider to be absolutely required (in some form) to be able to be successful ... the required tools do not take a phd to implement, they are very straightforward and simple ... perhaps they are not sexy and complicated so noone is interested, but they are required ... If you want to have a conversation about this I am willing ... now it happens that I am in Buenos Aires (soon to be Tucuman) so this week is not convenient for me to talk ... If you don't want to talk to me then look at the series of messages that I wrote last winter/spring to this mailing list (or pharo dev) where I described what I think you guys are missing ... and then ask me questions ... Dale |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Stef, > > I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. > > But I think there is another side of the coin as well. > > I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see anyone working on them .... I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier ... As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a fairly detailed guide ... The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo was finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues were going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction --- friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I cannot write the tools for Pharo ... Dale |
|
|
Hi Dale,
I think I missed your mails. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Let’s aim for a chat sometime next week. Would this work for you? Cheers, Doru > On Nov 7, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Stef, >> >> I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. >> >> But I think there is another side of the coin as well. >> >> I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. > Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see anyone working on them .... > > I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier ... > > As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a fairly detailed guide ... > > The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo was finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues were going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction --- friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... > > I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I cannot write the tools for Pharo ... > > Dale > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." |
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Mcz repos are useful. STH storage works nicely, that's more the frontend which si bitrotting. I actually have a local FTP based thing on my Synology and it is neat and needs no time to work. Did you ever look into Zinc and see there is also a server there for that? Now, GitHub is better for sharing as there is the *critical mass* there. And the tooling is very good. And we can stuff a lot of other things than mcz in it (and with Git LFS https://git-lfs.github.com/ we could even stuff images and mcz in there right away. This thing is next in line for inclusion in https://github.com/Pharophile/ExternalTools In pvt chats on Slack, there is this tension between moving forward and stabilizing stuff. I hope that with boostrap, we'll be able to have a stable core and LTS assemblies. Reinventing the wheel is fun. But it better has to be a better wheel. Let's alway thing about our "normal" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmTSpJU-Xc We are at risk of boiling ourselves, in whatever plane we are. I like the progress and I hate to have to adapt. But once past the curve, life is actually better. Lots. Phil On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Dale Henrichs-3
We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough :)
Which “unifying tools” are you referring ? I have followed very close your TOdE development… in a moment I was planning a migration of it for pure-pharo, just… lack of time as always and then later we started iceberg. now, we are in the process of defining a process ;) who works for pharo and is the moment to build the bridges we need, but in general I think that staying "with a foot in two boats” can just work during a very short lapse of time, after that, the stream continues going and if you do not finish your jump into one of the boats you will be very fast in the water. What I mean is that we can help any transition, but at the end there is no way of having a “nice, coexisting” ecosystem: we will have one OR the other, or something that does not works at all, but we will not have seamlessly one AND the other (which does not means people using monticello will be forced to use git tools or vice-versa, just that you will need to chose one… right now many (many for real) of our problems come from the attempt of keeping our git support behaving as regular monticello… and that way of doing has a limit. A limit I think we already passed. Anyway, if you can list what you think we will need for the transition, I will be very glad to see what we can do :) Esteban > On 7 Nov 2016, at 06:30, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Stef, >> >> I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. >> >> But I think there is another side of the coin as well. >> >> I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. > Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see anyone working on them .... > > I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier ... > > As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a fairly detailed guide ... > > The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo was finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues were going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction --- friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... > > I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I cannot write the tools for Pharo ... > > Dale > |
|
|
btw this is pharo-dev discussion, redirecting there.
Esteban > On 7 Nov 2016, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > > We are developing Iceberg… and I know is not enough :) > Which “unifying tools” are you referring ? > > I have followed very close your TOdE development… in a moment I was planning a migration of it for pure-pharo, just… lack of time as always and then later we started iceberg. > now, we are in the process of defining a process ;) who works for pharo and is the moment to build the bridges we need, but in general I think that staying "with a foot in two boats” can just work during a very short lapse of time, after that, the stream continues going and if you do not finish your jump into one of the boats you will be very fast in the water. > > What I mean is that we can help any transition, but at the end there is no way of having a “nice, coexisting” ecosystem: we will have one OR the other, or something that does not works at all, but we will not have seamlessly one AND the other (which does not means people using monticello will be forced to use git tools or vice-versa, just that you will need to chose one… right now many (many for real) of our problems come from the attempt of keeping our git support behaving as regular monticello… and that way of doing has a limit. A limit I think we already passed. > > Anyway, if you can list what you think we will need for the transition, I will be very glad to see what we can do :) > > Esteban > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 06:30, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/6/16 1:12 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> I think that you are raising a valid point, and I actually agree with it. >>> >>> But I think there is another side of the coin as well. >>> >>> I think that right now we are in between worlds and this is not quite beneficial. Switching to GitHub is a significant effort, and treating it as business as usual will not work. That is why I think it is so important that we committed to the move for Pharo 7 and that we invest in the infrastructure. But, this will not be enough either if we do not get people to exercise it as soon as possible. >> Doru, there are also holes in the tool set that are not being addressed ... there are a number of critical tools that need to be created and I don't see anyone working on them .... >> >> I went through this transition 5 years ago with my tool set and with the proper set of tools approach the difficult transition will be a bit easier ... >> >> As it stands Pharo is standing with one foot in two boats ... there are the old Monticello tools and the new Git/Filetree tools and what is needed is a tool or two that can unify to both tool sets so that the transition between the two can be seamless ... these two sets of tools are not complicated and there working implementations that can be adapted to Pharo or used as a fairly detailed guide ... >> >> The confusion and frustration that I see now is not a surprise to me ... I wrote" the emails" at the beginning of this year because I saw that Pharo was finally reaching a critical point in its move to integrate git into the mainstream development environment and I knew that these types of issues were going to come up where Monticello and Git were going to create friction --- friction that can be reduced by creating some simple "unifying tools" ... >> >> I want to help, I have tried to help and I am still willing to help, but I cannot write the tools for Pharo ... >> >> Dale >> > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |