I find these endless git vs monticello discussions confusing and pointless.
Maybe we can hang Q&A list somewhere on pharo website to point to? Because git is getting increased traction in Pharo, so the same questions and endless discussions will popup over and over again. 1. Some people here are acting like STHub and Monticello is going away tomorrow. I don't see how that can happen unless Pharo decides to fundamentally redo its object model. (STHub may die to free some resources, but I don't think that's a foreseeable future plan.) 2. Git is not "new", or "cool", or "bandwagon" technology; it has been here for a decade and more than proven that its value (in fact git is older than Pharo ;)). 3. If you consider the nomenclature confusing because you don't understand or use some concepts, that's fine. That's what tools are for (e.g. I don't use `git add` with Pharo, because I can pick what changes I want with Komitter ( https://www.peteruhnak.com/blog/2016/08/12/fine-grained-committing-and-extending-nautilus/ ) similarly Iceberg should be capable of this too (I am on Pharo 5 so iirc)). 4. Some comparisons between online git managers (github/bitbucket/...) and sthub just show that people don't understand e.g. "i download a program, add something, upload my addition. lets take an upload step, _one_ simple step with monticello "i upload something once (git add), i upload it a second time (git commit), i upload it a third time (git push), i try to upload it a fourth time (pull request)" The correct version for monticello is (from what I've experienced): I download a program, add something locally, send mail to maintainer, wait, get permission. Now I have complete control over someone else's repository. I release a new version but make a mistake in configuration; now every downstream project is broken and CI informs me only afterwards). If said person doesn't want to give me full access, I have to fileout my changes (or copy paste them), send them by email, wait more. I don't find that a good workflow. If you are working on your own project and want to ignore many things git has to offer (which I do regularly for many projects where it makes sense), then you can have literally the same "one click" with very little work (that can be part of Iceberg/GitFileTree for anyone else to use). You click commit in pharo; now it's on github (or wherever). My views are certainly biased as I've been using git for long time before I came to Monticello, which I still find very limiting. If I am needlessly unfair towards monticello then please correct me --- which is also part of my point; this knowledge shouldn't be hidden in mailing lists (as they are usually disorganized by nature), but in some easily discoverable and structured form (which I guess also loops this discussion back into the original Google visibility topic ;)). Peter On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 01:12:37PM +0100, Norbert Hartl wrote: > > > > Am 15.01.2017 um 10:29 schrieb "itli...@schrievkrom.de" > > <itli...@schrievkrom.de>: > > > > I would give you many more "+" - if you wish - for your opinion: > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Another point I would like to mention: keep the source code locally or > > at least have an easy option to hold all source code locally. > > > > I've seen so many times, that git or one of the other git repositories > > are down - that's a very critical point. > > > But....that's always the case with git. You have always all the code plus > history locally. Plus you can commit while being offline. Which is exactly > one point where git excels. Even envy cannot do that if I understood it > correctly. > > > > I would like to have a local repository, where I can import external > > packages and I work locally only. > > > You can do that with metacello. > > > I also have thought several times that it would be nice to have a SQLite > > database holding all sources/packages. How much easier life would be > > with that. > > > I cannot see how using an in-memory sql database can make your life easier. > To do what? > > Norbert > > Other than that: I prefer my simple server directory holding monticello > > packages - in the Gemstone/S area. > > > > But I have to admit, that all the source code management stuff I've seen > > since ENVY in the Smalltalk community are pretty poor stuff - and even > > considering integrating git is not a step forward in terms of technical > > improvements, but only in terms of marketing and mainstream technology. > > > > > > Marten > > > > > > > >> Am 14.01.2017 um 18:44 schrieb werner kassens: > >> Hi Dimitris, > >> i as a simple user tend to think about these things in simple terms: i > >> download a program, add something, upload my addition. lets take an > >> upload step, _one_ simple step with monticello: i upload something once > >> (git add), i upload it a second time (git commit), i upload it a third > >> time (git push), i try to upload it a fourth time (pull request), only > >> then i'm done (yes, there are possible shortcuts but so what). i'm sure > >> all this makes sense for the seasoned coder, but i certainly won't learn > >> that. <friendly grin> just as a small example how a user like me thinks > >> about this. > >> werner > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Marten Feldtmann > > > >
