On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 08:08:49PM -0300, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: > 2016-07-25 19:33 GMT-03:00 Sean Glazier <sglazier...@gmail.com>: > > > Thank you, Peter for documenting that :-). While I think git tools are OK, > > my opinion though is that Smalltalk hub should be moved forward as well. At > > cincom the Store experience started out painful and it has its quirks, but > > one of the advantages is that I could write tools to do things like browse > > senders and implementors in the repository. I git you are working with > > files and text and it does not have the notion of classes and methods and > > the value of being able to see the history of the class / methods. It is > > valuable when needing to understand not just the current implementation but > > where it came from. In Store, I could search and see when a method was > > present of a class and in what version lets say it got dropped > > unintentionally for instance. Even more important I think is to also note > > thing like renames and in cincom namespace renames and moves. > > I was working a while back on a way to have a persistent diary for a > > class that could note these histories and maintained and more importantly > > searchable from the image. > > I wrote tools too, to attach to a number of databases (repositories) and > > search for classes and the comments. Helpful when you are searching to see > > if someone else has solved a problem before. Git tools can tell you a lot > > about the repository you are publishing to and comparing code etc. But it > > does not help you to search across repositories and the data. > > > > I know this idea is a tall order. If we improved our tools to beable do > > this, no matter what the repository is behind it, that would be very > > helpful and powerful. I think it is a challenge in git because it is > > dealing with text and does not have a notion of what a class is etc. If we > > continue and put in more powerful search abilities, it will require using > > different paradigm in representing code so we can do more powerful things > > with the repository. We can browse the class without loading it but that > > gets us only so far. > > > > > That is exactly the core problem with Git. It was conceived by people very > used to think in terms of files and directories.
Because that is how the system (linux) works, so it makes sense that it works that way. > And it was promoted as a revolutionary tool. It is. > If the model of Git were well-done would be adaptable to handle references > of classes, and methods, of any typical programming language, regardless of > paradigms. Git is used also for other things, not just programming languages. Peter
