On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Nicolas Passerini <npasser...@gmail.com> wrote: > In Iceberg you currently can: > > 1) Download a project using metacello github:// protocol > 2) Use Iceberg to make it "writable" (i.e. transform it to an Iceberg > repository, pointing to the same remote repository), this is just one step. > 3) Commit and push using the new repo, etc.
Thank you for all the work you are doing ! I will try to use Iceberg to made a report. > What it is not done yet is the integration with github (or whatever) fork/pr > capabilities, it is in the roadmap but not just now because those are not > standard git operations, so it will involve communicating directly to the > github rest api (and others, we will not be attached to git nor github). > > So you should add two extra steps which are forking and pull requesting from > outside Pharo (or requesting access to the respository to commit right > there). Be careful to not linked too much Iceberg to github specificities. PR are github specificities. Branches can be transformed as PR automatically on github. > This should be a normal flow for contributing to a tool you are using, right > now is partially supported to be done from a git(hub) repository, I intend > to extend it to be done also from tools installed from smalltalkhub, etc. > Should be the same thing. > > > About the discussion between commits and PRs... I've seen both models > working right, I think that both have their advantages and I would like to > build tools to support both schemas. Personally, I prefer to give people the > possibility to commit, but even so I am used to work with PRs, because it > really helps the code review. Yes you can have your own branch, and I can > see the changes introduced by any commit, but usually is a PR that moves > people towards looking to the code, and I think that it is a nice model that > works well in practice. > In other projects, you have to fork, commit there, then PR, if two people > want to work together in an issue is not obvious how to do it... it adds > more bureaucracy, it might be necessary for a large project like Pharo, but > normally I prefer to avoid it. As you know git is agnostic in terms of workflow and several workflows have been proposed, like : centralized workflow, feature branch workflow, etc ... Do Iceberg will enforce some specific workflow ? I guess workflows for Pharo-dev and others projects might be different. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
