On 10 November 2016 at 06:07, Dale Henrichs < dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/8/16 11:04 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > > > On 7 November 2016 at 14:28, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > >> >> [ ... ] >> >> >> And this one I don't understand. A smooth, git / iceberg oriented >> transition over Monticello/Metacello is perfectly doable... As Dale >> explained. A nice Iceberg gui reworking / making git usable is perfect. >> >> But why make the transition so hard? You get Stef angry on a Sunday >> morning because he can't find things anymore... even if he is a strong >> proponent of the strategy he complains about ;) >> >> >> No my point was not that. >> My point is that it is important to pay attention and not to add more >> noise than necessary. Let us take the time and move alltogether. >> >> If you want to get somewhere with this story, you don't want to wait till > everything will be ready. > Transition will never start unless you force users to enter the minefield > and let them clear the mines for you. Step by step. Many will blow > themselves up, while some will manage to pass unhurt.. > Because else, it will be always a minefield between you and the > destination of your journey :) > > I think that at the early stages of the transition you have to support > both approaches ... when the new tools are in place and stabilized then one > can consider ... the transition has already started so this is not a case > where you need to force folks to change, but a case where you need to > support the folks who choose to change ... it can be relatively low cost to > keep the old tools around for quite awhile ... I would think ... > > Right, as i said: make a minefield and watch those who wanting to cross it. And big mistake then to shout: hey i will never ever step on it.. This is bad idea, since you discouraging people from doing what you need :) > Dale > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
