On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 November 2013 21:24, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8 November 2013 22:30, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The trunk is a huge part of the Squeak development process and
> >> > ecosystem that deserves and needs representation somewhere in the
> >> > system.  Access to it is reasonably needed by ReleaseBuilder,
> >> > Installer, source.squeak.org's SqueakSource and
> >> > MonticelloConfigurations.
> >>
> >> Does noone else in the Squeak community use MCMs? I don't, but my
> >> libraries are all very, very small.
> >>
> >> > Squeak has been using its own flavor of Monticello for several years
> >> > now, as does Pharo and GemStone.  So, to me, it feels fine to make it
> >> > Monticello-For-Squeak, meaning to relax restrictions imposed by
> >> > multiplatform so it can go as far as we want toward supporting the
> >> > Squeak process.
> >>
> >> It's not really germane to this discussion, but if I could flick a
> >> switch and have us updating from github, I would do so without
> >> hesitation. Monticello predates git by about 3 years, so we were right
> >> on the bleeding edge there for a while, but git is now very, very far
> >> ahead. It just makes so much sense to me to just use a world class
> >> tool that _we don't have to maintain_. (*)
> >
> >
> > Here's an example of why surrendering one's source code control to
> something
> > else is a really bad idea for an IDE:
>
> An IDE _always_ (*) surrenders source code control to something else!
> And it works just fine for emacs, Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio,
> IntelliJ, ...
>

No it doesn't.  And the fact that all the ones you mention do isn't a
strength.  All IDEs I know of surrender the *storage* of the repository to
something else, a file system, a database, a remote directory.  But lots of
Smalltalk environments keep firm control of their own source code control,
Store in VisualWorks, Orwell and later Team/V in Digitalk, Monticello in
Squeal/Pharo.  Just the addition of the simple version scheme in Squeak
changes & sources files puts it head and shoulders ahead of VisualWorks in
the ease of investigating history, undoing changes, etc.  This is vital to
the ease of programming, its flow, etc.  Squeak doers a great ob.  We
surrender that to something else at our peril.

One of the things we're not doing is trying to solve looking at long-term
history (ie. some kind of server that serves the long-term history of
packages).

Something I'm really excited to see the Pharo folks looking at is richer
change analysis than just method history, i.e. being able to spot method
refactorings, class renames and class hierarchy refactorings.


(*) Squeak being the exception
>

Smalltalk being the exception actually.  Smalltalk has proved powerful
enough for it to provide its own source code control, and that's been a
great strength.  AT work I have to use a thin skin above Mercurial that is
the solution for Newspeak and I despise it.  Compared to Monticello, it's
junk.


> The given error is unfortunate, but that's not even git's fault -
> "Filename too long" says it all. That super long filename comes from
> filetree, so the error's existent is a confluence of a particular
> source->file mapping together with a file system limitation.
>

But the net effect is the same.  By relying on something external the
system broke.  And it's not easy for the Pharo community to get it fixed.
 They'll have to wrk-around the problem, and compromise something they want
in their name mangling.  I live with crap like this all the time in
building the VM (mingw and cygwin are awful things to depend on).  At least
in the VM building context (and Newspeak) it is only a few souls who have
to suffer.  I hope we don't inflict this kind of thing on the general
Squeak community.


>
> > "When doing a git clone, I do get the following:
> >
> >
> > Philippe at gravitation7 ~
> > $ git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git
> > Cloning into 'pharo-vm'...
> > remote: Counting objects: 17493, done.
> > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12363/12363), done.
> > remote: Total 17493 (delta 4271), reused 17137 (delta 4143)
> > Receiving objects: 100% (17493/17493), 19.28 MiB | 1.88 MiB/s, done.
> > Resolving deltas: 100% (4271/4271), done.
> > Checking connectivity... done
> > error: unable to create file
> > mc/VMMaker-oscog.package/GeniePlugin.class/instance
> >
> /primSameClassAbsoluteStrokeDistanceMyPoints.otherPoints.myVectors.otherVectors.
> >
> mySquaredLengths.otherSquaredLengths.myAngles.otherAngles.maxSizeAndReferenceFla
> > g.rowBase.rowInsertRemove.rowInsertRemoveCount..st (Filename too long)
> > Checking out files: 100% (17525/17525), done.
> > fatal: unable to checkout working tree
> > warning: Clone succeeded, but checkout failed.
> > You can inspect what was checked out with 'git status'
> > and retry the checkout with 'git checkout -f HEAD'
> >
> > Pretty weird error I'd say.
> >
> > Anyone knowing what this is related to?"
> >
> > IMO having Monticello under our own control is a key strength.  yes, it's
> > effortful to maintain but I don't see why we can't summon that effort.
>  I do
> > fear that if we don't we just become like everything else and soon enough
> > we're just another scripting language.  The Smalltalk team had a name for
> > this, something like "error 22", meaning depending on the success of
> other
> > projects or infrastructure.  It's a bad idea, unless its bedrock.
>
> Monticello was great, back in the day. But why do we _have_ to saddle
> ourselves with the effort of maintaining it ourselves? What else might
> we _better_ do if we didn't spend all our time NIHing everything?
>
> And now, 7 years of git later, I'd consider git to be bedrock. Git
> _has succeeded_. It and mercurial have gutted the competition: darcs,
> monotone, bazaar, ...
>
> frank
>
> >> > Having said that, I must admit this really does make it
> >> > Squeak-specific, no longer generic.  So, maybe an alternative should
> >> > be to model our development process elements in a new package,
> >> > SqueakDevelopmentProcess (?), which would depend on our Squeak's
> >> > generic Monticello to represent the elements of our development
> >> > process.
> >>
> >> I'm not terribly concerned with Squeak-specific or otherwise. It's
> >> just that it's _trunk_ specific. I'd rather see a
> >> SqueakDevelopmentProcess package than see it in the Monticello
> >> package.
> >>
> >> frank
> >>
> >> (*) Finding that switch to flick is pretty hard though, which is why I
> >> don't rant and rave about this all the time. Filetree's OK, but
> >> destroys the ability of browsing source on the git repository (but
> >> gives you the proper fine-grained version control you'd want).
> >> gitfiletree supplies a Pharo UI to filetree, and it would be
> >> worthwhile to port that UI to Squeak, through ToolBuilderification.
> >> Continuing this discussion would necessitate a subject thread change!
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Nicolas Cellier
> >> > <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I have same feeling as Frank,
> >> >> a specific address of a specific repository for a specific usage has
> >> >> not
> >> >> much thing to do in MC.
> >> >> MC package should not integrate each and every possible usage of MC.
> >> >> If this does not belong to ReleaseBuilder, then we can make it a
> System
> >> >> thing...
> >> >> If it's only for MCM, didn't we get a MCMcmUpdater defaultUpdateURL?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2013/11/8 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> MonticelloConfigurations has no dependency on ReleaseBuilder and I
> >> >>> don't think we should introduce one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If you at least acknowledge "trunk" is a real-thing in the real
> world,
> >> >>> then note existence of MCRepository>>#trunk.  Sure, we could make a
> >> >>> class-var or something if that helps you feel better, but my opinion
> >> >>> right now is that is not necessary because code can change if/when
> it
> >> >>> needs to.  Let's not let maybe-future-pie-in-the-sky-perfect be the
> >> >>> enemy of pragmatic progress in the present.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Frank Shearar
> >> >>> <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > On 8 November 2013 15:25,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> Chris Muller uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The
> >> >>> >> Trunk:
> >> >>> >> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-cmm.575.mcz
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> ==================== Summary ====================
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Name: Monticello-cmm.575
> >> >>> >> Author: cmm
> >> >>> >> Time: 3 October 2013, 9:42:40.555 pm
> >> >>> >> UUID: daeb51c6-0b6f-41db-883d-e9764e61d8c5
> >> >>> >> Ancestors: Monticello-cmm.573
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> - Integrate Berts suggestions.  Refactored and renamed the API
> for
> >> >>> >> the
> >> >>> >> new history and origin browsing functions to avoid ambiguity with
> >> >>> >> other MC
> >> >>> >> domain elements.  Went from "version" nomenclature to "history".
> >> >>> >> - Related to those functions, browsing a list of patch operations
> >> >>> >> is
> >> >>> >> now abstracted from browsing a Patch.  MCPatch is now a
> >> >>> >> MCOperationsList
> >> >>> >> and, likewise, a MCPatchBrowser inherits from a
> >> >>> >> MCOperationsBrowser.
> >> >>> >> - Added well-known repository accessors for #trunk and
> >> >>> >> #packageCache,
> >> >>> >> and #trunkUrlString avoids scattering the hard-coded url string
> >> >>> >> literal in
> >> >>> >> so many places.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I don't like this last item. MCHttpRepository has no business
> >> >>> > knowing
> >> >>> > about any particular location, nor should we commit ourselves to
> any
> >> >>> > particular repository implementation. For instance, it might make
> a
> >> >>> > whole lot of sense to build a repository backed by Cassandra.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I'm not convinced that ReleaseBuilder isn't the right place for
> this
> >> >>> > info. Or, to avoid the double negative, I think ReleaseBuilder is
> >> >>> > the
> >> >>> > place that should know about the trunk URL, because
> ReleaseBuilder's
> >> >>> > the class responsible for this kind of thing. One kind of release
> we
> >> >>> > build is a release candidate, for instance.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > frank
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > best,
> > Eliot
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131119/83cea432/attachment.htm