github et al (was [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-cmm.575.mcz)

On 8 November 2013 22:30, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The trunk is a huge part of the Squeak development process and
> ecosystem that deserves and needs representation somewhere in the
> system.  Access to it is reasonably needed by ReleaseBuilder,
> Installer, source.squeak.org's SqueakSource and
> MonticelloConfigurations.

Does noone else in the Squeak community use MCMs? I don't, but my
libraries are all very, very small.

> Squeak has been using its own flavor of Monticello for several years
> now, as does Pharo and GemStone.  So, to me, it feels fine to make it
> Monticello-For-Squeak, meaning to relax restrictions imposed by
> multiplatform so it can go as far as we want toward supporting the
> Squeak process.

It's not really germane to this discussion, but if I could flick a
switch and have us updating from github, I would do so without
hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right
on the bleeding edge there for a while, but git is now very, very far
ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)

> Having said that, I must admit this really does make it
> Squeak-specific, no longer generic.  So, maybe an alternative should
> be to model our development process elements in a new package,
> SqueakDevelopmentProcess (?), which would depend on our Squeak's
> generic Monticello to represent the elements of our development
> process.

I'm not terribly concerned with Squeak-specific or otherwise. It's
just that it's _trunk_ specific. I'd rather see a
SqueakDevelopmentProcess package than see it in the Monticello
package.

frank

(*) Finding that switch to flick is pretty hard though, which is why I
don't rant and rave about this all the time. Filetree's OK, but
destroys the ability of browsing source on the git repository (but
gives you the proper fine-grained version control you'd want).
gitfiletree supplies a Pharo UI to filetree, and it would be
worthwhile to port that UI to Squeak, through ToolBuilderification.
Continuing this discussion would necessitate a subject thread change!

> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Nicolas Cellier
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I have same feeling as Frank,
>> a specific address of a specific repository for a specific usage has not
>> much thing to do in MC.
>> MC package should not integrate each and every possible usage of MC.
>> If this does not belong to ReleaseBuilder, then we can make it a System
>> thing...
>> If it's only for MCM, didn't we get a MCMcmUpdater defaultUpdateURL?
>>
>>
>> 2013/11/8 Chris Muller <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> MonticelloConfigurations has no dependency on ReleaseBuilder and I
>>> don't think we should introduce one.
>>>
>>> If you at least acknowledge "trunk" is a real-thing in the real world,
>>> then note existence of MCRepository>>#trunk.  Sure, we could make a
>>> class-var or something if that helps you feel better, but my opinion
>>> right now is that is not necessary because code can change if/when it
>>> needs to.  Let's not let maybe-future-pie-in-the-sky-perfect be the
>>> enemy of pragmatic progress in the present.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 8 November 2013 15:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The Trunk:
>>> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.575.mcz
>>> >>
>>> >> ==================== Summary ====================
>>> >>
>>> >> Name: Monticello-cmm.575
>>> >> Author: cmm
>>> >> Time: 3 October 2013, 9:42:40.555 pm
>>> >> UUID: daeb51c6-0b6f-41db-883d-e9764e61d8c5
>>> >> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.573
>>> >>
>>> >> - Integrate Berts suggestions.  Refactored and renamed the API for the
>>> >> new history and origin browsing functions to avoid ambiguity with other MC
>>> >> domain elements.  Went from "version" nomenclature to "history".
>>> >> - Related to those functions, browsing a list of patch operations is
>>> >> now abstracted from browsing a Patch.  MCPatch is now a MCOperationsList
>>> >> and, likewise, a MCPatchBrowser inherits from a MCOperationsBrowser.
>>> >> - Added well-known repository accessors for #trunk and #packageCache,
>>> >> and #trunkUrlString avoids scattering the hard-coded url string literal in
>>> >> so many places.
>>> >
>>> > I don't like this last item. MCHttpRepository has no business knowing
>>> > about any particular location, nor should we commit ourselves to any
>>> > particular repository implementation. For instance, it might make a
>>> > whole lot of sense to build a repository backed by Cassandra.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not convinced that ReleaseBuilder isn't the right place for this
>>> > info. Or, to avoid the double negative, I think ReleaseBuilder is the
>>> > place that should know about the trunk URL, because ReleaseBuilder's
>>> > the class responsible for this kind of thing. One kind of release we
>>> > build is a release candidate, for instance.
>>> >
>>> > frank
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On 19 November 2013 21:24, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 November 2013 22:30, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > The trunk is a huge part of the Squeak development process and
>> > ecosystem that deserves and needs representation somewhere in the
>> > system.  Access to it is reasonably needed by ReleaseBuilder,
>> > Installer, source.squeak.org's SqueakSource and
>> > MonticelloConfigurations.
>>
>> Does noone else in the Squeak community use MCMs? I don't, but my
>> libraries are all very, very small.
>>
>> > Squeak has been using its own flavor of Monticello for several years
>> > now, as does Pharo and GemStone.  So, to me, it feels fine to make it
>> > Monticello-For-Squeak, meaning to relax restrictions imposed by
>> > multiplatform so it can go as far as we want toward supporting the
>> > Squeak process.
>>
>> It's not really germane to this discussion, but if I could flick a
>> switch and have us updating from github, I would do so without
>> hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right
>> on the bleeding edge there for a while, but git is now very, very far
>> ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
>> tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)
>
>
> Here's an example of why surrendering one's source code control to something
> else is a really bad idea for an IDE:

An IDE _always_ (*) surrenders source code control to something else!
And it works just fine for emacs, Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio,
IntelliJ, ...

(*) Squeak being the exception

The given error is unfortunate, but that's not even git's fault -
"Filename too long" says it all. That super long filename comes from
filetree, so the error's existent is a confluence of a particular
source->file mapping together with a file system limitation.

> "When doing a git clone, I do get the following:
>
>
> Philippe@gravitation7 ~
> $ git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git
> Cloning into 'pharo-vm'...
> remote: Counting objects: 17493, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12363/12363), done.
> remote: Total 17493 (delta 4271), reused 17137 (delta 4143)
> Receiving objects: 100% (17493/17493), 19.28 MiB | 1.88 MiB/s, done.
> Resolving deltas: 100% (4271/4271), done.
> Checking connectivity... done
> error: unable to create file
> mc/VMMaker-oscog.package/GeniePlugin.class/instance
> /primSameClassAbsoluteStrokeDistanceMyPoints.otherPoints.myVectors.otherVectors.
> mySquaredLengths.otherSquaredLengths.myAngles.otherAngles.maxSizeAndReferenceFla
> g.rowBase.rowInsertRemove.rowInsertRemoveCount..st (Filename too long)
> Checking out files: 100% (17525/17525), done.
> fatal: unable to checkout working tree
> warning: Clone succeeded, but checkout failed.
> You can inspect what was checked out with 'git status'
> and retry the checkout with 'git checkout -f HEAD'
>
> Pretty weird error I'd say.
>
> Anyone knowing what this is related to?"
>
> IMO having Monticello under our own control is a key strength.  yes, it's
> effortful to maintain but I don't see why we can't summon that effort.  I do
> fear that if we don't we just become like everything else and soon enough
> we're just another scripting language.  The Smalltalk team had a name for
> this, something like "error 22", meaning depending on the success of other
> projects or infrastructure.  It's a bad idea, unless its bedrock.

Monticello was great, back in the day. But why do we _have_ to saddle
ourselves with the effort of maintaining it ourselves? What else might
we _better_ do if we didn't spend all our time NIHing everything?

And now, 7 years of git later, I'd consider git to be bedrock. Git
_has succeeded_. It and mercurial have gutted the competition: darcs,
monotone, bazaar, ...

frank

>> > Having said that, I must admit this really does make it
>> > Squeak-specific, no longer generic.  So, maybe an alternative should
>> > be to model our development process elements in a new package,
>> > SqueakDevelopmentProcess (?), which would depend on our Squeak's
>> > generic Monticello to represent the elements of our development
>> > process.
>>
>> I'm not terribly concerned with Squeak-specific or otherwise. It's
>> just that it's _trunk_ specific. I'd rather see a
>> SqueakDevelopmentProcess package than see it in the Monticello
>> package.
>>
>> frank
>>
>> (*) Finding that switch to flick is pretty hard though, which is why I
>> don't rant and rave about this all the time. Filetree's OK, but
>> destroys the ability of browsing source on the git repository (but
>> gives you the proper fine-grained version control you'd want).
>> gitfiletree supplies a Pharo UI to filetree, and it would be
>> worthwhile to port that UI to Squeak, through ToolBuilderification.
>> Continuing this discussion would necessitate a subject thread change!
>>
>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Nicolas Cellier
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> I have same feeling as Frank,
>> >> a specific address of a specific repository for a specific usage has
>> >> not
>> >> much thing to do in MC.
>> >> MC package should not integrate each and every possible usage of MC.
>> >> If this does not belong to ReleaseBuilder, then we can make it a System
>> >> thing...
>> >> If it's only for MCM, didn't we get a MCMcmUpdater defaultUpdateURL?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2013/11/8 Chris Muller <[hidden email]>
>> >>>
>> >>> MonticelloConfigurations has no dependency on ReleaseBuilder and I
>> >>> don't think we should introduce one.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you at least acknowledge "trunk" is a real-thing in the real world,
>> >>> then note existence of MCRepository>>#trunk.  Sure, we could make a
>> >>> class-var or something if that helps you feel better, but my opinion
>> >>> right now is that is not necessary because code can change if/when it
>> >>> needs to.  Let's not let maybe-future-pie-in-the-sky-perfect be the
>> >>> enemy of pragmatic progress in the present.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Frank Shearar
>> >>> <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > On 8 November 2013 15:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> >> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The
>> >>> >> Trunk:
>> >>> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.575.mcz
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> ==================== Summary ====================
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Name: Monticello-cmm.575
>> >>> >> Author: cmm
>> >>> >> Time: 3 October 2013, 9:42:40.555 pm
>> >>> >> UUID: daeb51c6-0b6f-41db-883d-e9764e61d8c5
>> >>> >> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.573
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> - Integrate Berts suggestions.  Refactored and renamed the API for
>> >>> >> the
>> >>> >> new history and origin browsing functions to avoid ambiguity with
>> >>> >> other MC
>> >>> >> domain elements.  Went from "version" nomenclature to "history".
>> >>> >> - Related to those functions, browsing a list of patch operations
>> >>> >> is
>> >>> >> now abstracted from browsing a Patch.  MCPatch is now a
>> >>> >> MCOperationsList
>> >>> >> and, likewise, a MCPatchBrowser inherits from a
>> >>> >> MCOperationsBrowser.
>> >>> >> - Added well-known repository accessors for #trunk and
>> >>> >> #packageCache,
>> >>> >> and #trunkUrlString avoids scattering the hard-coded url string
>> >>> >> literal in
>> >>> >> so many places.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I don't like this last item. MCHttpRepository has no business
>> >>> > knowing
>> >>> > about any particular location, nor should we commit ourselves to any
>> >>> > particular repository implementation. For instance, it might make a
>> >>> > whole lot of sense to build a repository backed by Cassandra.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm not convinced that ReleaseBuilder isn't the right place for this
>> >>> > info. Or, to avoid the double negative, I think ReleaseBuilder is
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > place that should know about the trunk URL, because ReleaseBuilder's
>> >>> > the class responsible for this kind of thing. One kind of release we
>> >>> > build is a release candidate, for instance.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > frank
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> best,
> Eliot
>
>
>

Frank wrote:

>>> hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right...

> Monticello was great, back in the day.

> And now, 7 years of git later, I'd...

One thing that's usually not a big factor with a lot of Smalltalkers
-- the "age" of the software.  In fact that seems a strange thing to
focus on given you're using a 30-year old language in the first
place..

>>> ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
>>> tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)

It's fine to be impressed with "successful" (translation: used by lots
of developers) bedrock software but we should not trick ourselves into
thinking there's "nothing to do" to use it.  The _interface_ to the
SCM...

> The given error is unfortunate, but that's not even git's fault -
> "Filename too long" says it all. That super long filename comes from
> filetree, so the error's existent is a confluence of a particular
> source->file mapping together with a file system limitation.

... is not necessarily easier to "maintain" than SCM integrated
directly into the Smalltalk environment.  In fact, the domain model is
probably the simplest part of Monticello.

I think other IDE's use external SCM because they're not an integrated
development "environment" at all.  They're a cluster of tools.
Smalltalk is a true integrated environment which I believe ironically
makes using integrated SCM not only possible but just as easy as
interfacing to external.

 - Chris

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 21:24, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 November 2013 22:30, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > The trunk is a huge part of the Squeak development process and
>>> > ecosystem that deserves and needs representation somewhere in the
>>> > system.  Access to it is reasonably needed by ReleaseBuilder,
>>> > Installer, source.squeak.org's SqueakSource and
>>> > MonticelloConfigurations.
>>>
>>> Does noone else in the Squeak community use MCMs? I don't, but my
>>> libraries are all very, very small.
>>>
>>> > Squeak has been using its own flavor of Monticello for several years
>>> > now, as does Pharo and GemStone.  So, to me, it feels fine to make it
>>> > Monticello-For-Squeak, meaning to relax restrictions imposed by
>>> > multiplatform so it can go as far as we want toward supporting the
>>> > Squeak process.
>>>
>>> It's not really germane to this discussion, but if I could flick a
>>> switch and have us updating from github, I would do so without
>>> hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right
>>> on the bleeding edge there for a while, but git is now very, very far
>>> ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
>>> tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)
>>
>>
>> Here's an example of why surrendering one's source code control to something
>> else is a really bad idea for an IDE:
>
> An IDE _always_ (*) surrenders source code control to something else!
> And it works just fine for emacs, Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio,
> IntelliJ, ...
>
> (*) Squeak being the exception
>
> The given error is unfortunate, but that's not even git's fault -
> "Filename too long" says it all. That super long filename comes from
> filetree, so the error's existent is a confluence of a particular
> source->file mapping together with a file system limitation.
>
>> "When doing a git clone, I do get the following:
>>
>>
>> Philippe@gravitation7 ~
>> $ git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git
>> Cloning into 'pharo-vm'...
>> remote: Counting objects: 17493, done.
>> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12363/12363), done.
>> remote: Total 17493 (delta 4271), reused 17137 (delta 4143)
>> Receiving objects: 100% (17493/17493), 19.28 MiB | 1.88 MiB/s, done.
>> Resolving deltas: 100% (4271/4271), done.
>> Checking connectivity... done
>> error: unable to create file
>> mc/VMMaker-oscog.package/GeniePlugin.class/instance
>> /primSameClassAbsoluteStrokeDistanceMyPoints.otherPoints.myVectors.otherVectors.
>> mySquaredLengths.otherSquaredLengths.myAngles.otherAngles.maxSizeAndReferenceFla
>> g.rowBase.rowInsertRemove.rowInsertRemoveCount..st (Filename too long)
>> Checking out files: 100% (17525/17525), done.
>> fatal: unable to checkout working tree
>> warning: Clone succeeded, but checkout failed.
>> You can inspect what was checked out with 'git status'
>> and retry the checkout with 'git checkout -f HEAD'
>>
>> Pretty weird error I'd say.
>>
>> Anyone knowing what this is related to?"
>>
>> IMO having Monticello under our own control is a key strength.  yes, it's
>> effortful to maintain but I don't see why we can't summon that effort.  I do
>> fear that if we don't we just become like everything else and soon enough
>> we're just another scripting language.  The Smalltalk team had a name for
>> this, something like "error 22", meaning depending on the success of other
>> projects or infrastructure.  It's a bad idea, unless its bedrock.
>
> Monticello was great, back in the day. But why do we _have_ to saddle
> ourselves with the effort of maintaining it ourselves? What else might
> we _better_ do if we didn't spend all our time NIHing everything?
>
> And now, 7 years of git later, I'd consider git to be bedrock. Git
> _has succeeded_. It and mercurial have gutted the competition: darcs,
> monotone, bazaar, ...
>
> frank
>
>>> > Having said that, I must admit this really does make it
>>> > Squeak-specific, no longer generic.  So, maybe an alternative should
>>> > be to model our development process elements in a new package,
>>> > SqueakDevelopmentProcess (?), which would depend on our Squeak's
>>> > generic Monticello to represent the elements of our development
>>> > process.
>>>
>>> I'm not terribly concerned with Squeak-specific or otherwise. It's
>>> just that it's _trunk_ specific. I'd rather see a
>>> SqueakDevelopmentProcess package than see it in the Monticello
>>> package.
>>>
>>> frank
>>>
>>> (*) Finding that switch to flick is pretty hard though, which is why I
>>> don't rant and rave about this all the time. Filetree's OK, but
>>> destroys the ability of browsing source on the git repository (but
>>> gives you the proper fine-grained version control you'd want).
>>> gitfiletree supplies a Pharo UI to filetree, and it would be
>>> worthwhile to port that UI to Squeak, through ToolBuilderification.
>>> Continuing this discussion would necessitate a subject thread change!
>>>
>>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Nicolas Cellier
>>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> I have same feeling as Frank,
>>> >> a specific address of a specific repository for a specific usage has
>>> >> not
>>> >> much thing to do in MC.
>>> >> MC package should not integrate each and every possible usage of MC.
>>> >> If this does not belong to ReleaseBuilder, then we can make it a System
>>> >> thing...
>>> >> If it's only for MCM, didn't we get a MCMcmUpdater defaultUpdateURL?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2013/11/8 Chris Muller <[hidden email]>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MonticelloConfigurations has no dependency on ReleaseBuilder and I
>>> >>> don't think we should introduce one.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you at least acknowledge "trunk" is a real-thing in the real world,
>>> >>> then note existence of MCRepository>>#trunk.  Sure, we could make a
>>> >>> class-var or something if that helps you feel better, but my opinion
>>> >>> right now is that is not necessary because code can change if/when it
>>> >>> needs to.  Let's not let maybe-future-pie-in-the-sky-perfect be the
>>> >>> enemy of pragmatic progress in the present.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Frank Shearar
>>> >>> <[hidden email]>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > On 8 November 2013 15:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>> >> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The
>>> >>> >> Trunk:
>>> >>> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.575.mcz
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> ==================== Summary ====================
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Name: Monticello-cmm.575
>>> >>> >> Author: cmm
>>> >>> >> Time: 3 October 2013, 9:42:40.555 pm
>>> >>> >> UUID: daeb51c6-0b6f-41db-883d-e9764e61d8c5
>>> >>> >> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.573
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> - Integrate Berts suggestions.  Refactored and renamed the API for
>>> >>> >> the
>>> >>> >> new history and origin browsing functions to avoid ambiguity with
>>> >>> >> other MC
>>> >>> >> domain elements.  Went from "version" nomenclature to "history".
>>> >>> >> - Related to those functions, browsing a list of patch operations
>>> >>> >> is
>>> >>> >> now abstracted from browsing a Patch.  MCPatch is now a
>>> >>> >> MCOperationsList
>>> >>> >> and, likewise, a MCPatchBrowser inherits from a
>>> >>> >> MCOperationsBrowser.
>>> >>> >> - Added well-known repository accessors for #trunk and
>>> >>> >> #packageCache,
>>> >>> >> and #trunkUrlString avoids scattering the hard-coded url string
>>> >>> >> literal in
>>> >>> >> so many places.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I don't like this last item. MCHttpRepository has no business
>>> >>> > knowing
>>> >>> > about any particular location, nor should we commit ourselves to any
>>> >>> > particular repository implementation. For instance, it might make a
>>> >>> > whole lot of sense to build a repository backed by Cassandra.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I'm not convinced that ReleaseBuilder isn't the right place for this
>>> >>> > info. Or, to avoid the double negative, I think ReleaseBuilder is
>>> >>> > the
>>> >>> > place that should know about the trunk URL, because ReleaseBuilder's
>>> >>> > the class responsible for this kind of thing. One kind of release we
>>> >>> > build is a release candidate, for instance.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > frank
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>

On 19 November 2013 22:00, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 November 2013 21:24, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Frank,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 8 November 2013 22:30, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > The trunk is a huge part of the Squeak development process and
>> >> > ecosystem that deserves and needs representation somewhere in the
>> >> > system.  Access to it is reasonably needed by ReleaseBuilder,
>> >> > Installer, source.squeak.org's SqueakSource and
>> >> > MonticelloConfigurations.
>> >>
>> >> Does noone else in the Squeak community use MCMs? I don't, but my
>> >> libraries are all very, very small.
>> >>
>> >> > Squeak has been using its own flavor of Monticello for several years
>> >> > now, as does Pharo and GemStone.  So, to me, it feels fine to make it
>> >> > Monticello-For-Squeak, meaning to relax restrictions imposed by
>> >> > multiplatform so it can go as far as we want toward supporting the
>> >> > Squeak process.
>> >>
>> >> It's not really germane to this discussion, but if I could flick a
>> >> switch and have us updating from github, I would do so without
>> >> hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right
>> >> on the bleeding edge there for a while, but git is now very, very far
>> >> ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
>> >> tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's an example of why surrendering one's source code control to
>> > something
>> > else is a really bad idea for an IDE:
>>
>> An IDE _always_ (*) surrenders source code control to something else!
>> And it works just fine for emacs, Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio,
>> IntelliJ, ...
>
>
> No it doesn't.  And the fact that all the ones you mention do isn't a
> strength.  All IDEs I know of surrender the *storage* of the repository to
> something else, a file system, a database, a remote directory.  But lots of
> Smalltalk environments keep firm control of their own source code control,
> Store in VisualWorks, Orwell and later Team/V in Digitalk, Monticello in
> Squeal/Pharo.  Just the addition of the simple version scheme in Squeak
> changes & sources files puts it head and shoulders ahead of VisualWorks in
> the ease of investigating history, undoing changes, etc.  This is vital to
> the ease of programming, its flow, etc.  Squeak doers a great ob.  We
> surrender that to something else at our peril.

Mild talking past each other here. IntelliJ uses your favourite
version control system under the hood to store your code: it supplies
menus for driving, for instance, git to commit code and whatnot. It
does, in addition, store versions for every time you hit enter (or
after a period of time). These are distinct features. I'm not
proposing losing the versions button or using git to store the data
behind the versions button.

I'm proposing that we keep the Monticello front end, add a few new
buttons, and rip out the storage of source on disk, replacing it with
git. I have yet to find a decent mapping of Smalltalk code to files,
but I'd put up with a crap one if it meant one less thing that we
didn't need to do.

Smalltalk was 30 years ahead of its time in 1980. It's now a decade
behind other languages. That is a tragedy that, in my opinion at
least, largely comes from the Smalltalk community's extreme
insularity/NIH.

> One of the things we're not doing is trying to solve looking at long-term
> history (ie. some kind of server that serves the long-term history of
> packages).
>
> Something I'm really excited to see the Pharo folks looking at is richer
> change analysis than just method history, i.e. being able to spot method
> refactorings, class renames and class hierarchy refactorings.

>> (*) Squeak being the exception
>
>
> Smalltalk being the exception actually.  Smalltalk has proved powerful
> enough for it to provide its own source code control, and that's been a
> great strength.

I claim synecdoche :)

>  AT work I have to use a thin skin above Mercurial that is
> the solution for Newspeak and I despise it.  Compared to Monticello, it's
> junk.

I've not used MemoryHole, so I have no idea how much of "it's junk"
comes from mercurial and how much from MemoryHole.

I do know that the
biggest reason I've not written any Newspeak (and I'm fully aware that
I have failed in communicating this to Gilad) is that I don't want to
touch the UI with a barge pole. I made a tiny start at writing a
newspeak-mode for Emacs, and that's as far as I got.

>> The given error is unfortunate, but that's not even git's fault -
>> "Filename too long" says it all. That super long filename comes from
>> filetree, so the error's existent is a confluence of a particular
>> source->file mapping together with a file system limitation.
>
>
> But the net effect is the same.  By relying on something external the system
> broke.  And it's not easy for the Pharo community to get it fixed.  They'll
> have to wrk-around the problem, and compromise something they want in their
> name mangling.  I live with crap like this all the time in building the VM
> (mingw and cygwin are awful things to depend on).  At least in the VM
> building context (and Newspeak) it is only a few souls who have to suffer.
> I hope we don't inflict this kind of thing on the general Squeak community.

Sure. Bugs are bugs. Let's not forget the recent Monticello fail
regarding UTF-8. We'll also _always_ depend on something. But that
doesn't mean that we should take responsibility for the entire world,
because we don't have the manpower. Even if we did, it's not even a
good idea.

frank

>> > "When doing a git clone, I do get the following:
>> >
>> >
>> > Philippe@gravitation7 ~
>> > $ git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git
>> > Cloning into 'pharo-vm'...
>> > remote: Counting objects: 17493, done.
>> > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12363/12363), done.
>> > remote: Total 17493 (delta 4271), reused 17137 (delta 4143)
>> > Receiving objects: 100% (17493/17493), 19.28 MiB | 1.88 MiB/s, done.
>> > Resolving deltas: 100% (4271/4271), done.
>> > Checking connectivity... done
>> > error: unable to create file
>> > mc/VMMaker-oscog.package/GeniePlugin.class/instance
>> >
>> > /primSameClassAbsoluteStrokeDistanceMyPoints.otherPoints.myVectors.otherVectors.
>> >
>> > mySquaredLengths.otherSquaredLengths.myAngles.otherAngles.maxSizeAndReferenceFla
>> > g.rowBase.rowInsertRemove.rowInsertRemoveCount..st (Filename too long)
>> > Checking out files: 100% (17525/17525), done.
>> > fatal: unable to checkout working tree
>> > warning: Clone succeeded, but checkout failed.
>> > You can inspect what was checked out with 'git status'
>> > and retry the checkout with 'git checkout -f HEAD'
>> >
>> > Pretty weird error I'd say.
>> >
>> > Anyone knowing what this is related to?"
>> >
>> > IMO having Monticello under our own control is a key strength.  yes,
>> > it's
>> > effortful to maintain but I don't see why we can't summon that effort.
>> > I do
>> > fear that if we don't we just become like everything else and soon
>> > enough
>> > we're just another scripting language.  The Smalltalk team had a name
>> > for
>> > this, something like "error 22", meaning depending on the success of
>> > other
>> > projects or infrastructure.  It's a bad idea, unless its bedrock.
>>
>> Monticello was great, back in the day. But why do we _have_ to saddle
>> ourselves with the effort of maintaining it ourselves? What else might
>> we _better_ do if we didn't spend all our time NIHing everything?
>>
>> And now, 7 years of git later, I'd consider git to be bedrock. Git
>> _has succeeded_. It and mercurial have gutted the competition: darcs,
>> monotone, bazaar, ...
>>
>> frank
>>
>> >> > Having said that, I must admit this really does make it
>> >> > Squeak-specific, no longer generic.  So, maybe an alternative should
>> >> > be to model our development process elements in a new package,
>> >> > SqueakDevelopmentProcess (?), which would depend on our Squeak's
>> >> > generic Monticello to represent the elements of our development
>> >> > process.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not terribly concerned with Squeak-specific or otherwise. It's
>> >> just that it's _trunk_ specific. I'd rather see a
>> >> SqueakDevelopmentProcess package than see it in the Monticello
>> >> package.
>> >>
>> >> frank
>> >>
>> >> (*) Finding that switch to flick is pretty hard though, which is why I
>> >> don't rant and rave about this all the time. Filetree's OK, but
>> >> destroys the ability of browsing source on the git repository (but
>> >> gives you the proper fine-grained version control you'd want).
>> >> gitfiletree supplies a Pharo UI to filetree, and it would be
>> >> worthwhile to port that UI to Squeak, through ToolBuilderification.
>> >> Continuing this discussion would necessitate a subject thread change!
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Nicolas Cellier
>> >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >> I have same feeling as Frank,
>> >> >> a specific address of a specific repository for a specific usage has
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> much thing to do in MC.
>> >> >> MC package should not integrate each and every possible usage of MC.
>> >> >> If this does not belong to ReleaseBuilder, then we can make it a
>> >> >> System
>> >> >> thing...
>> >> >> If it's only for MCM, didn't we get a MCMcmUpdater defaultUpdateURL?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2013/11/8 Chris Muller <[hidden email]>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> MonticelloConfigurations has no dependency on ReleaseBuilder and I
>> >> >>> don't think we should introduce one.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If you at least acknowledge "trunk" is a real-thing in the real
>> >> >>> world,
>> >> >>> then note existence of MCRepository>>#trunk.  Sure, we could make a
>> >> >>> class-var or something if that helps you feel better, but my
>> >> >>> opinion
>> >> >>> right now is that is not necessary because code can change if/when
>> >> >>> it
>> >> >>> needs to.  Let's not let maybe-future-pie-in-the-sky-perfect be the
>> >> >>> enemy of pragmatic progress in the present.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Frank Shearar
>> >> >>> <[hidden email]>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > On 8 November 2013 15:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The
>> >> >>> >> Trunk:
>> >> >>> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.575.mcz
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> ==================== Summary ====================
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Name: Monticello-cmm.575
>> >> >>> >> Author: cmm
>> >> >>> >> Time: 3 October 2013, 9:42:40.555 pm
>> >> >>> >> UUID: daeb51c6-0b6f-41db-883d-e9764e61d8c5
>> >> >>> >> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.573
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> - Integrate Berts suggestions.  Refactored and renamed the API
>> >> >>> >> for
>> >> >>> >> the
>> >> >>> >> new history and origin browsing functions to avoid ambiguity
>> >> >>> >> with
>> >> >>> >> other MC
>> >> >>> >> domain elements.  Went from "version" nomenclature to "history".
>> >> >>> >> - Related to those functions, browsing a list of patch
>> >> >>> >> operations
>> >> >>> >> is
>> >> >>> >> now abstracted from browsing a Patch.  MCPatch is now a
>> >> >>> >> MCOperationsList
>> >> >>> >> and, likewise, a MCPatchBrowser inherits from a
>> >> >>> >> MCOperationsBrowser.
>> >> >>> >> - Added well-known repository accessors for #trunk and
>> >> >>> >> #packageCache,
>> >> >>> >> and #trunkUrlString avoids scattering the hard-coded url string
>> >> >>> >> literal in
>> >> >>> >> so many places.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I don't like this last item. MCHttpRepository has no business
>> >> >>> > knowing
>> >> >>> > about any particular location, nor should we commit ourselves to
>> >> >>> > any
>> >> >>> > particular repository implementation. For instance, it might make
>> >> >>> > a
>> >> >>> > whole lot of sense to build a repository backed by Cassandra.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I'm not convinced that ReleaseBuilder isn't the right place for
>> >> >>> > this
>> >> >>> > info. Or, to avoid the double negative, I think ReleaseBuilder is
>> >> >>> > the
>> >> >>> > place that should know about the trunk URL, because
>> >> >>> > ReleaseBuilder's
>> >> >>> > the class responsible for this kind of thing. One kind of release
>> >> >>> > we
>> >> >>> > build is a release candidate, for instance.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > frank
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > best,
>> > Eliot
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> best,
> Eliot

On 20 November 2013 16:56, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> No it doesn't.  And the fact that all the ones you mention do isn't a
>>> strength.  All IDEs I know of surrender the *storage* of the repository to
>>> something else, a file system, a database, a remote directory.  But lots of
>>> Smalltalk environments keep firm control of their own source code control,
>>> Store in VisualWorks, Orwell and later Team/V in Digitalk, Monticello in
>>> Squeal/Pharo.  Just the addition of the simple version scheme in Squeak
>>> changes & sources files puts it head and shoulders ahead of VisualWorks in
>>> the ease of investigating history, undoing changes, etc.  This is vital to
>>> the ease of programming, its flow, etc.  Squeak doers a great ob.  We
>>> surrender that to something else at our peril.
>>
>> Mild talking past each other here. IntelliJ uses your favourite
>> version control system under the hood to store your code: it supplies
>> menus for driving, for instance, git to commit code and whatnot. It
>> does, in addition, store versions for every time you hit enter (or
>> after a period of time). These are distinct features. I'm not
>> proposing losing the versions button or using git to store the data
>> behind the versions button.
>>
>> I'm proposing that we keep the Monticello front end, add a few new
>> buttons, and rip out the storage of source on disk, replacing it with
>> git. I have yet to find a decent mapping of Smalltalk code to files,
>> but I'd put up with a crap one if it meant one less thing that we
>> didn't need to do.
>
> The "storage" you refer to is already encapsulated by MCRepository.  I
> would welcome a new MCGitRepository subclass if it were able to meet
> the minimum API requirements of MCRepository.  But I see no need to
> "rip out" any of the existing repository-types..
>
>> Smalltalk was 30 years ahead of its time in 1980. It's now a decade
>> behind other languages. That is a tragedy that, in my opinion at
>> least, largely comes from the Smalltalk community's extreme
>> insularity/NIH.
>
> Again, I don't think this group will be moved by this line of
> reasoning, even with such dramatic language ("tragedy?" c'mon).

I would use stronger language. I think our current state of affairs is
a _disaster_.

> Something that would be much more convincing, to me at least, would be
> learning what having a MCGitRepository would do for MY goals and also
> the community at large.  For example, I'm intrigued by Git's forking
> capability.  How could that capability integrate into our ecosystem in
> a useful way to bring more development power to the community?

I'm actually tired of the whole argument. So, in lieu of further talk,
I'm just going to carry on squirreling away on my stuff, chipping away
at the dependency nightmare we have (and if you think that's
hyperbole, you really ought to haul out graphviz and take a long, hard
look at the dependency graph. Go make yourself some coffee while dot
munges the file (which you can generate off
https://gist.github.com/frankshearar/5781906)).

Eventually we'll get to a place where I can not shiver in horror, and
then I can think again about the git problem. Even better, maybe
Camillo Bruni, Dale Henrichs and friends will have done the hard work
for me. 

frank