Eliot Miranda-2 wrote
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:18 PM Jakob Reschke wrote:
So either we have that true Git adapter for Monticello (then we would also not need our own server implementation), or the server has a Monticello frontend in front of the Git backend.
If you were architecting this on a tight budget, which would you choose and why?
This one I didn't answer. Starting from what we have today, I would just remove some big dents from the Git Browser and try to create that differently looking GUI variant of it for the "Monticello appeal". Because this does not have the flaws of Monticello I mentioned, but it can have all its benefits, and much of the work has been done already.
Alternatively, try to get this MCGitRepository underway, so you can enjoy whatever you like about the Monticello tools and despise about the Git tools (those in the image, not on the command line), and we could still profit from pull requests etc. on platforms like GitHub, or other kinds of Git integrations. One positive thing about this approach is that it should be possible to copy versions between Git repositories and Monticello repositories as we know them today. The big downside for me in this is that I suspect many will then not even look at the alternative tools and their benefits.
On a tight budget, I think the Git server in Smalltalk is not really feasible in a way that it provides any benefit over a self-hosted GitLab.
-- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html