[squeak-dev] Perl is to CPAN as Squeak is to (what)?

Hi Avi,

we communicate with Subversion by using the C-API of SVN and a VMPlugin.

Robert


On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Avi Bryant wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
<[hidden email]> wrote:
You're completely right, but having spent most of my career working
for big companies, I can say they are *not* the place to see where the
industry is moving.  Only where it was years ago. :)

On 6/30/08, Avi Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I personally believe that we're better off with Smalltalk-specific
> version control, but if someone *is* looking at integration with more
> mainstream tools, I would strongly suggest they start with git rather
> than SVN.
>
> Avi

+1.  If we must chase inferior methodologies, hopefully we can at
least not use obsolete variations of them.

Am 03.07.2008 um 17:07 schrieb Jason Johnson:

Agreed, although git is rather Linux-centric, so Hg might be a better  
choice for a cross-platform system like Squeak.

- Bert -

>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> writes:

Bert> Agreed, although git is rather Linux-centric, so Hg might be a better  choice
Bert> for a cross-platform system like Squeak.

What makes you think git is Linux-centric?  I've worked hard for the last two
years to be "the canary in the coal mine" whenever Git failed to work on OSX
and OpenBSD, and the git developers have been *very* responsive.  In fact,
some of the core developers are now exclusively on Macs. :)

The only place git still doesn't feel "at home" is Windows, where it
has to run under some unix-layer on windows (not familiar with this,
so I'm not explaining it well).

However, for flexibility and raw speed, git is hard to beat, especially at
branching and merging, which is the point of having a distributed SCM.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Bert Freudenberg wrote: Having tried Hg, I have found Bzr to be preferable.

Hg doesnt have a lightweight checkout, Bzr does. i.e. you can deploy the
latest, without the whole history.

I have setup a public (ish) bzr server at bzr.warwick.st with 160Gb of
space. We will be using this for managing and distributing the results
of automated image builds in the near future.

best regards

Keith

Am 03.07.2008 um 17:43 schrieb Randal L. Schwartz:

>>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> Bert> Agreed, although git is rather Linux-centric, so Hg might be a  
> better  choice
> Bert> for a cross-platform system like Squeak.
>
> What makes you think git is Linux-centric?  [...]
>
> The only place git still doesn't feel "at home" is Windows

That is exactly my point.

Don't get me wrong, I develop on Linux and OS X only (using svn and  
git), but I hear git is faster on Linux and Windows users do complain.  
And no matter how we skin this cat, Windows users are in the majority.

- Bert -

> And no matter how we skin this cat, Windows users are in the majority.
>
> - Bert -

The *vast* majority, by far; however, cygwin makes Windows a perfectly
acceptable unix as far as the command line goes and git is available as a
loadable package so there's no reason say git is Linux centric, rather that
it's command line centric.  Any developer worth his salt uses the command
line regularly, even in Windows.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

Keith Hodges wrote:
>>
> Having tried Hg, I have found Bzr to be preferable.
>
> Hg doesnt have a lightweight checkout, Bzr does. i.e. you can deploy the
> latest, without the whole history.
>
> I have setup a public (ish) bzr server at bzr.warwick.st with 160Gb of
> space. We will be using this for managing and distributing the results
> of automated image builds in the near future.

Just trying to bring everything back to the core question:
What about having something like CPAN (with a CPAN installer) for Squeak?

I am trying to follow the discussions, but to me it seems as if this
central question is not really discussed.

Instead, there are interesting topics, like Squeak-To-SVN,
advantages/disadvantages of other Versioning Tools (whose names I have
not even heard, was in ENVY/Manager, SVN and ClearCase land too long it
seems), nameing and so on...

What about the central question?
What about having something like CPAN (with a CPAN installer) for Squeak?

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 21:54 +0200, Claus Kick wrote:
> What about the central question?
> What about having something like CPAN (with a CPAN installer) for Squeak?
>
What makes you think CPAN is a good solution or appropriate for squeak?
For me CPAN means a lot of things. Maybe you should go into detail about
it to show the good things that would be valuable for squeak.

I personally read a lot of good points in the discussion what could be
appropriate for squeak. Especially the tension not to build another tool
but to enhance/migrate the existing ones.

Norbert

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's also Stave which is like SqueakFS but uses WebDAV instead of
FUSE. http://www.squeaksource.com/Stave.html I've since stopped using
Squeak til I can figure out a reasonable thunk between Squeak and perl
so I can use CPAN directly.

Josh