> On 2 Nov 2018, at 12:01, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> Am 02.11.2018 um 11:15 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Pay attention the following email is not nice and politically correct
>> but it is important for the speed of improvements in Pharo.
>>
> thanks for the disclaimer. It is important. I copy that because mine might be
> not political correct, too.
>
>> I think that we are doing our best when dealing with subproject code.
>> Now if we are forced to publish each little changes
>> on each subproject and wait that something gets integrated into each
>> subproject, then I would prefer to stop Pharo and do something else.
>> We cannot ask someone to stop in the middle of a massive super boring
>> and feel like shit cleaning in addition to stop and
>> please publish a PR and wait that it gets integrated and wait that
>> Pharo integrates the new version.
>> Let us be a bit serious and pro here.
>>
> I know this. And I’m taking it serious because I want to talk about it. If
> you decide that you rather be offended then talk please do. I find it
> annoying that a lot of topics are washed away because someone is offended.
> That is just another way of killing communication although it is a
> state-of-the-art these days.
>
>> Or we should drop subprojects. Because changing Pharo is getting a
>> painful. Imagine just a change cross cutting several subprojects.
>> For example, I did not fix the use of deprecated classes in Iceberg
>> because I got distracted by the where is the project hosted and I was
>> not connected on a good web connection. I changed calypso and
>> published to calypso but if the feedback loop is too long it means
>> that
>> we will prefer to work on our own projects (because we have also our
>> own projects and there velocity is high and attractive).
>>
>> I think that with github support this is simple to get the changes.
>> Finally I heard that large companies developing large projects using
>> github are managing one single repo: no subprojects, with their own PR
>> and sync. And us little guys with our super clever brains we will
>> succeed adding more constraints on the table.
>> How bold are we. I'm impressed by such level of arrogance. This is why
>> I do not like that Pharo gets managed in various repo
>> because it kills us.
>>
> Actually I was inquiring what everyone is doing to circumvent those problems
> (!!!). I have the same situation in my company. I’m the one that is reluctant
> to go to monorepo because I don’t like my code jailed in a project. But the
> effort we have to take in order to organize a stable and development version
> with a lot of external projects is killing us. So can we please talk about
> it? Pleeeeeaaassseee???
It is what it is today: there a some (a few) 'external' projects that are part
of the pharo image. For those, (most) allow changes in the pharo image, while
the maintainer of the external project merges them back upstream. That is
indeed the fastest cycle for pharo itself, but more work for the maintainers.
I believe the promise of Iceberg is that it would (maybe already is) just as
easy to do pull requests against against any repo. The future solution then
could be that each external project from the main image to their own repos.
I want to add another aspect to this discussion: respect for the original
authors and current maintainers. It is a *HUGE* amount of work to write,
document, publish, support and maintain any piece of software over several
years, across pharo versions.
> Norbert
>
>> Stef
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Norbert,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back
>>>>>> upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively
>>>>> minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in
>>>>> Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble.
>>>>
>>>> Norbert,
>>>>
>>>> I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in
>>>> GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn
>>>> #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please test ?
>>>>
>>> The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading
>>> different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today.
>>> Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in
>>> smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch.
>>>
>>> Norbert
