[squeak-dev] A New Community Development Model

Joshua Gargus schwa at fastmail.us
Thu Jul 2 07:58:51 UTC 2009


Norbert Hartl wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 02:16 -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Norbert Hartl<norbert at hartl.name> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I still don't think that Monticello is the right way to go. It doesn't
>>> really manage changes. I can so easily overwrite a change that was
>>> applied before that it is hard to use. You can argue that you have to
>>> be careful anyway and that you can merge. You are right but still it
>>> is hard to use. Another thing is pharo. All of my contribution to the
>>> image I did in pharo because I never saw much a chance to do this in
>>> squeak. Now it can be doable. And doing something in pharo and not be
>>> able to do it in squeak at the same time strikes me really. Using
>>> always Monticello with full source compare will prevent applying fixes
>>> from one team to the other. The sources are just more different every
>>> day.
>>>       
>> Convert the changes into a change set.  File the change set into each
>> system and then create a new Monticello file for each system.
>>
>> Andreas said that the repository will hold MC files.  He didn't say
>> you couldn't use change sets on your own.  Or any other tool you want
>> to use.  Use whatever you want to get your work done, then post it in
>> a standard format.
>>
>>     
>
> Ralph,
>
> I'm aware that it is doable. But you must see that there is a difference
> between having the opportunity to file in the same thing with little 
> tweaking to multiple targets instead of first creating the target files
> in a cumbersome way. Don't take this too literally. It will work somehow
> to do this with Monticello. But as there is a tension to lower barriers
> I just thought making that barrier lower is also wanted. That's all what
> I wanted to say.
>
> And...perhaps I didn't here much discussion about what goran was saying.
> I understand people if they don't see much sense in using a piece of 
> software that hasn't matured yet for the management of their stuff. But
> this could still be a part of the refreshing actions.
>   

I think maybe I missed some of your context in my last message.  Perhaps
DeltaStreams (or something) can help lower the barriers to contribute
simultaneously to Squeak and Pharo.  However, I don't think that there's
any sense waiting an indefinite period for that technical solution to
mature while we have a pretty-good tool to use right now (and I see more
clearly that you're not suggesting that either). 

I think that after some more experience with a Monticello-based process,
whatever shortcomings that need to be addressed by future tools will
naturally become more clear.  It's good to keep the issues that you
raise in mind; they will be addressed in time.

Cheers,
Josh

 
> Norbert
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090702/6db2694c/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list