Jakob,

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:45 AM, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot,
> 
>> Am Mi., 26. Aug. 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Eliot Miranda
>> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
>> 
>> If we go with Tonel then we must change it to support method timestamps.  I have a change set that does this (it is a trivial change).  And my changes are controlled by a class variable so that the same code can produce Pharo format or a slightly modified format that includes method timestamps.
>> 
>> What I don’t understand is why Esteban Lorenzano refuses to accept my changes and allow Tonel to be used either with or without method timestamps.
>> 
> 
> Method timestamps produce merge conflicts inevitably.

a) only when they change, and they change only when methods change
b) inadvertent method timestamp changes can be undone automatically
c) Squeak uses method timestamps; we have lots of tools that use them. Dropping them just so that we can use Tonel is an example of the tail wagging the dog. The Tonel interface must instead be made to function with method timestamps

If there is a decision not to support method timestamps then I will not support the work. This is a make or break issue for me.

> Can you re-post
> your changeset here?

I’ll post it later today (reading email in bed right now).

> https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-tonel/issues

OK

> Then we could
> discuss whether to include it at least in the Squeak version. As we
> have heard from Mariano some time ago, VA Smalltalk also puts its
> dialect-specific metadata in the Tonel format, so Squeak would not be
> the first to do so.

Good.

> Kind regards,
> Jakob