Hi Frank,

Can you tell me which one has better SUnit coverage? (I'm on a phone.)

If FileSystem doesn't have just some enormous complexity, if the code is at least as good (however we're going to be measuring that) and there are good tests, I can't think of any reason we shouldn't do what the hipsters are doing, except of course the work involved. 

<ironic type="hipster">mustache</ironic>

On May 24, 2013, at 1:58 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> So Metacello is being forced, along with many other packages, to
> re-implement a compatibility layer because Squeak uses FileDirectory
> and Pharo uses FileSystem.
> 
> Now I completely understand that Pharo's understanding of
> FileDirectory is about 5 years out of date. By now, countless
> arguments on pharo-dev have shown that the two packages are roughly
> isomorphic in functionality and API.
> 
> Camillo Bruni's even shown this by implementing a shim exposing a
> FIleDirectory API on top of FileSystem to ease migration of early
> Pharo projects to later versions of Pharo.
> 
> So I have a pair of questions:
> * how far have wiresong's FileSystem and Pharo's FileSystem diverged?
> (And how do we bring the two back together again, if necessary?)
> * How do we fix the problem?
> 
> Pharo has nearly emptied the open source Smalltalk room of oxygen, so
> there's an argument for saying that FileSystem has won and we should
> use it. If we did move to FileSystem we _would_ want to keep Cami's
> shim, because we care about backwards compatibility a whole lot more
> than Pharo. And of course there's Cuis to consider.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> (Note: please _don't_ talk about the spilt more than absolutely
> necessary. It's done, it can't be undone, and we should concentrate
> our energies on moving Squeak forward, and minimising pain for those
> brave souls who try keep their packages cross platform.)
> 
> frank
>