We can get the information using the GitHub API... like https://api.github.com/repos/pharo-project/pharo/commits/development?pathsrc/BaselineOfIDE.package/BaselineOfIDE.class/instance/baseline..st
-- Pavel 2017-07-10 11:32 GMT+02:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com>: > > > 2017-07-10 11:22 GMT+02:00 Alistair Grant <akgrant0...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:15:27AM +0200, Nicolai Hess wrote: >> > >> > 2017-07-10 10:31 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <pavel.kriva...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > However the real question is if we need them in the form we had >> them until >> > now because they are flattened as soon as a new changes file >> (release) is >> > created and it stores only information about the last person who >> touched >> > the method, not about the author nor wider history. >> > >> > For me, YES! >> > >> > I always take this data as a hint to track down bugs. Especially in >> > this community were different people do bug fixes or introduce >> > something new /change something, it is really helpfull and valueable >> > to track this changes by the method history. (not only *who* did the >> > change, but also, in what context, what else had changed. And I think >> > it is much easier to do this from within the image instead of looking >> > at the git diff). >> >> Are the two really mutually exclusive? Given the move to Iceberg >> wouldn't it make sense to extend Iceberg to be able to analyse the git >> history from within the image? >> > > > No, they are not mutually exclusive, it is just that you can not see the > history now. > Maybe iceberg will solve this, but for now you can not see the history > (and as a windows user, I can not even use iceberg). > > > >> >> >> > That hte history is already lost when we created a new changes/sources >> > for release is something that always disturbed me. And I hoped there >> > would be some way to reload the "real" history with all intermediate >> > changes. >> >> Cheers, >> Alistair >> >> >> >
