On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Cees de Groot wrote:
>> Personally, I would point my finger at the use of MC instead of MC
>> itself (MC seems to be not fit for a particular purpose its creators
>> probably never reckoned with).
>
> According to Colin "Monticello was designed with maintaining live  
> system in mind" (see http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/ 
> squeak-dev/2006-February/101067.html)

Yeah. I probably shouldn't have stated it that strongly. Our "live  
systems" at the time were web apps with data stored in an external  
database. So if by "maintaining live systems" you mean updating the  
code without out taking down the app, yeah. If you also mean "and  
migrating in-image objects transparently," well no, not quite.

On the other hand, truly "live systems" are a big part of what this  
community does, and I personally would like to see Monticello do a  
better job of serving that part of the community. As Avi mentioned,  
Monticello2 has been moving very, very slowly forward for the last  
year (2 years is a bit of an exaggeration). I honestly think, though,  
that it's the best vehicle for addressing these issues. I'm going to  
keep pushing it forward, hopefully making faster progress than I have  
been.

Colin