+1
It was like that.
On 30 Nov 2014, at 13:41, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com
<mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2014-11-27 18:01 GMT+03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
<mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>:
btw… historic reference: sthub was never intended to be there for
stay. I remember talking about it with Nico and Stef, more than
two years ago, before sthub came online, and our conclusion at
the time was: “yes, the future it will be git, but until we get
there, let’s put sthub online because sqsource cannot handle more
projects"
And why you not choose squeaksource3 which maintained by gemstone
team and includes all features from old squeaksource? Why you instead
develop sthub if you not believe in it?
Smalltalkhub was already there.
Question was if we put it online or not, not if we develop it or not.
ss3 was there but Dale always said (at the time) that was a proof of
concept and that having time for work on it was complicated (and
search was severely broken, and it was slow and we were having *real*
problems when doing massive downloads).
both situations are probably fixed now, but at the time having a 3rd
solution for the community looked like a good idea.
and I believe it was. Even if you plan, in the future, to provide
something else that you believe is better, when you are developing
something like Pharo you have certain responsibilities with your
community, you cannot drop something without having already a good
replacement. We needed a solution soon, we had sthub, so it was a good
match.
and look now… I still believe the future is using Git as our central
source management system, but we are still not there, tools are still
not good enough and then, we still need to have tools like sthub.
Esteban
