> Using git has nothing to do with a file based system. The approach would be > to use git as a storage backend for monticello. Git just stores 3 types of > objects: commit, tree, blob. > There are no files involved!! So this would be perfectly compatible with and > image based system such as smalltalk.
Agreed. Git can easily be used as a storage system for our tools. > > However I see that smalltalkers tend to ignore the fact that there are other > tools not written in smalltalk which are widely used and they actually work! > For instance monticello. Although the model works perfectly fine, the UI is > just plain crap, it does not provide a nice workflow nor is it readable... > Git on the other hand might be too complex, but it lets do more stuff on the > command line, in an easier fashion than the mc tool. Monticello may have a poor UI, but Git has the worst possible UI, encourages awful practices, and just doesn't do the job well. Can we stop making this about Git, and actually make it about solving real problems? The real problems, as I see them, are: 1) We would like good UIs for interacting with our version control system, and 2) We would like an online tool for collaboration and sharing. Neither of these problems are solved by Git, so I would ask that people stop talking about Git as though it solves either one of them. GitHub solves the latter, an lots of the former, and perhaps that's where we should start looking. > Smalltalkers tend to reinvent the wheel, which is sometimes nice, if its well > designed and actually works, but many times its rather a waste of time, than > just relying on existing working infrastructure that people outside smalltalk > build. I disagree here; version control is an invaluable part of development, it should be part of the environment. How is using a system that is older than Git (Monticello) reinventing the wheel? -Steven
