On Oct 29, 2010, at 14:29, Davorin Rusevljan wrote:
On 10/29/2010 02:12 PM, Geert Claes wrote:
Sounds very interesting, what would the main advantages be of using a GIT
backend?
It is what you use for other assets. So the Monticello git-backed repo
could be simply a subtree of the project-wide repo.
There would be also one trivial, but possibly important social aspect.
Some Smalltalk projects might be hosted on GitHub, and become visible
to larger audience.
...and benefit from github's issue tracker, from a VCS that handles branches in a way that actually makes sense, from any continuous integration tool that you can trigger on post-commit hooks, and so on.
The hard point is how to fit in the file-based crowd, without imposing too many idiosyncrasies, but without loosing the power of smalltalk-specific tools.
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
On Oct 29, 2010, at 14:29, Davorin Rusevljan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
>> On 10/29/2010 02:12 PM, Geert Claes wrote:
>>> Sounds very interesting, what would the main advantages be of using a GIT
>>> backend?
>>
>> It is what you use for other assets. So the Monticello git-backed repo
>> could be simply a subtree of the project-wide repo.
>
> There would be also one trivial, but possibly important social aspect.
> Some Smalltalk projects might be hosted on GitHub, and become visible
> to larger audience.
...and benefit from github's issue tracker, from a VCS that handles branches in a way that actually makes sense, from any continuous integration tool that you can trigger on post-commit hooks, and so on.
The hard point is how to fit in the file-based crowd, without imposing too many idiosyncrasies, but without loosing the power of smalltalk-specific tools.
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
