Le 28 sept. 2015 04:29, "Ben Coman" <b...@openinworld.com> a écrit : > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I’ve been using git for all my projects since more than one year now, and frankly I found it really good… and the pull request mechanism is unbeatable. > > Now, what I do believe is that we need to improve a couple of things: > > > > 1) filtree format is not good while working on teams (which is the power of git, after all). Merging is a pain and the merge driver provided by Thierry is just a patch, not a real alternative. > > 2) double commit is annoying. > > > > We have a decent solution for (2), gitfiletree but is not working fine in windows (and that’s mandatory). I would like a community push here to make it work fine. > > Once is working, I would like to replace the OSProcess usage with actual libgit2. As far as I understand, this is already possible but we hadn’t commit time to make it possible (and I would put it as a secondary goal: first make it work with what we have, then use the library). > > Would moving to libgit2 bypass the problem with stdio? > > > Now the filetree format has problems merging because it stores some metadata that we do not really need. The origin of this is the fact that is using git as “just another interchangeable repository for monticello”. IMHO while this was desirable for start, is not a good solution now. We do not need that information at all. > > I worked in a replacement for filetree and as a file format it works fine… is just a variation who does not stores the not-needed information and relies on STON to manage the one we actually need. > > I have a vague recollection that the problem was a particular file > where data changed each commit and having the idea that this might be > solved by: each commit writing metadata to a different file e.g. > NNNN.metadata, and Monticello knows to pick up the highest numbered > metadata. > > > > After, we can build the actual tools we need. But with that working we will see a lot clearer what we actually need to do :) > > > > So I would do a “call for pushing” and ask community to spend some time making it work properly. > > > > cheers, > > Esteban > > > > > >> On 27 Sep 2015, at 13:43, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > >> > >> Alex do you know git? > >> Because to me git is **really** complex. I do not talk about add push commit but rebase remote.... > > Git is very flexible which implies complexity for newcomers to it. > What is required on top of git is a "well defined" workflow. I see > sometimes on this mail-list that people design their tools for > flexibility since they don't want to *impose* a workflow on people, > which is a commendable philosophy, but slows adoption by newcomers. > It may be useful to define "this is *the* way its done here" , with > the standard proviso that there may be missteps that need to be tuned.
Currently working in a distributed team with multiple companies. We use git and also Phabricator for reviews which is really great. I cant think of *not* using a DVCS and features like git rebase in such an environment. Phil > > cheers -ben > > > >> Did you try to use sourcetree (the UI for git) to understand what I mean? > >> So we cannot use git simply we have to propose a much nicer model on top of this assembly. > >> > >> Now you can systematicall save your code with monticello and automatically publish it to git. > >> Esteban has a script for doing that. > >> > >> Stef > >> > >>> … Pharo may be within the 30 most popular languages on Earth. > >>> The 30th languages has 3,253 repository. There are 2,635 on SmalltalkHub. > >>> > >>> I wish we had a nice Git integration. > >>> > >>> Alexandre > >> > >> > > > > >
