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-td4906094.html

[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-td5063124.html

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/33262179#33262179

See first answer "Oh, I actually tried this out and encountered some odd problems."

cheers -ben