we share the same goals as pharo, just a different idea of how to get there.
Just to be clear: I'm not in any way invested in Squeak or Pharo, just curious about your approach. Well, this and also perhaps a bit skeptical about implementing new stuff when similar stuff exists.
There have been several discussions about using that tool to export large chunks of pharo and using that as the basis for the redline class library. I personally have tended to resist that (and swayed many people) because it brings along with it a ton of cruft. That said, we all have full time jobs and I'm starting to think that it would be better to start with cruft and remove rather than starting clean and build up. Which side of that I fall on, really varies from day to day. I'm thinking of taking a chunk of pharo and seeing how hard an export of modify would be vs. doing the implementation from scratch.
https://github.com/redline-smalltalk/redline-smalltalk/tree/...
Announcement here:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-...
JAR file here:
http://www.esug.org/wiki/pier/Conferences/2010/Talks/Montice...
i haven't really watched monticello 2, but last I remember you're essentially merging packages in and out of your vm.
it really depends on what your goals are, and I guess the old discussion of visual and non visual programming also applies a little bit to the vm, non vm smalltalk discussion.
personally i like to avoid magic whenever i can
not to mention that when we were evaluating squeak a year or so back git was nothing more than a half assed gsoc project.
but even so, the fact that you can pipe anything into git one way or another doesn't change the fact that they are conceptually different, but if it does, feel free to correct me.
how does git backend for monticello work? does it turn objects into text so they can be versioned in git? if so that's exactly what dvs was doing for cvs.