Cees De Groot wrote:

>On 1/30/06, Simon Kirk <Simon.Kirk at pinesoft.co.uk> wrote:
>  
>
>> I'm not sure what MCC is. Is it MC2? I have read in the list that the
>>performance of MC2 is vastly improved over MC.
>>
>>    
>>
>MCC is MonticelloConfigurations, a simple add-on package to store
>configurations of package versions, so you can load back a release
>whenever you need to patch against it.
>
>  
>
>>Let's face it: the easier that transition is the better, because I think
>>Squeak has such massive potential and every block that stops it being
>>adopted is a Very Bad Thing (tm).
>>
>>    
>>
>You're absolutely right. I think that we're making progress here, but
>the problem is that we're changing Squeak (in all its facets) so fast
>that it is extremely hard to keep up with documentation.
>
>For example (and this should help boosting your trust in Monticello),
>just two years ago (I think) everyone was still exchanging changesets
>etcetera. MC took the community by storm, and has changed how people
>work on every level (from publishing private packages via
>SqueakSource, another major enabler, to how 3.9a is developed).
>  
>
That's all great - I'll be taking all the advice I've been given here 
and applying it, hopefully I'll be able to get everything as I would 
wish it - if not I'll whine again (ahem)

>  
>
>> I may have mislead a bit here as well - it was a single system, but it was
>>about 50 seperate CVS (then svn) modules which were combined using
>>J2EE/Tomcat/Eclipse cleverness into one coherant system :)
>>
>>    
>>
>Sorry. I have to run for a bucket :P
>  
>
Haha :) It made sense.. honest?


This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20060131/617cacb9/attachment.htm