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