On 11/4/05, Chris Muller <chris at funkyobjects.org> wrote:
> While Magma can currently be used as a Monticello repository out of the box,
> but I doubt whether the redundancy is eliminated because I think Monticello
> builds an entirely new object-structure to fully represent each version, there
> is no sharing.
>
Indeed. My current spike logs MCMethod/ClassDefinitions and groups
them together under versions. Still needs work, though, for me to be
able to reconstruct full snapshots :)

> How often do you want the 100th version ago of a method dated back forever?  I
> actually kind of like how getting a new image starts clean with all of the
> method histories.  I usually only care to know what I've been doing *lately*.
>
Yup. A month back or so, before that you only want stuff that's
released. But building in GC will be relatively easy, so I'm not
bothering with that right now.

> As great as ENVY was, I don't really miss it; Monticello is too good.
>
Well... there are serious space and performance problems with
Monticello. And other issues - I refer to someone here on the list
having to manually clean the comment history of a package because it
contained proprietary information.

And a feature I sorely miss when compared to ENVY and also StORE is
the ability to query the database. In VW, I often find myself going
back to the method versions logged in StORE, etcetera.

So, in the land of Smalltalk versioning systems, MC still ranks as
'extremely promising' with me, not yet as 'very good' ;)