On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 03:52, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 2018-10-28, at 12:37 PM, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com
wrote:
The only thing I'd like to see in Tonel is per-method timestamps a la
[snip]
but I know there is active opposition to this idea.
Why on earth is there any opposition to what appears a perfectly reasonable idea? Within, of course, the context of an idea I find rather daft, that of trying to force Smalltalk source code into a model that seems completely at odds.
Active opposition seems a bit strong. My understanding is that problematic merge conflicts of such version info were difficult to work around. Something similar to this... [1] http://developers-club.com/posts/244839/
Here are some historical discussion of merge problems experienced in the move to support git... [3] http://forum.world.st/metadata-less-FileTree-repository-support-part-I-td490...
[4] http://forum.world.st/Author-name-in-version-Iceberg-td4968472.html
[5] http://forum.world.st/git-and-author-timestamps-10000-s-of-files-etc-td50631...
At one point I thought I might do better and spent a fair it of time trying to crack this. I was experimenting by manually simulated the version info updates using a text editor and merging different branches, but it beat me.
However I just now bumped into a novel solution that I never considered which doesn't require merge drivers and wonder how this approach might influence the merge issues we found problematic [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33122014/git-conflicts-with-json-files/3... See first answer "Oh, I actually tried this out and encountered some odd problems."
cheers -ben