MC2? (was Re: [squeak-dev] Monticello: committing part of a change)

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at
Thu Feb 17 09:02:08 UTC 2011

On 2011/02/15 21:23, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Casey Ransberger
> <casey.obrien.r at>  wrote:
>> Whatever happened to MC2 anyway? We currently use a fork of MC, no? In the longer term, does MC2 make more sense? Can we merge the changes from Trunk (e.g. atomic loading) into MC2? How much work would that be?
>> I regularly hear people asking for feature x and see replies to the effect "MC2 does that." So it seems like it meets some wants, if not needs. Are there objections to MC2, is MC2 just not well baked, or is it just a lot of work that no one is excited about doing?
>> If the problem is the latter, maybe someone who knows a bit about MC with a spot of time should ask ESUG for a grant.
>> I tried doing a port of MC from trunk to Cuis one night, and I learned two things:
>>   - MC is complex (I expected this)
>>   - I don't understand MC well enough to port it yet. Got the UI and networking going but that was as far as I could go without hitting the low limit of my understanding
> Bert's right. MC2 is a rethink, applying what we've learned from MC1
> to a ground-up rewrite.
> The current release of MC2 is stable and usable, but it has some
> workflow issues that make it impractical for projects with a lot of
> contributors. The bleeding-edge version of MC2 solves these issues (I
> think), but it's incomplete and unusable.
> MC2 doesn't move forward very fast because 1) MC1 is good enough for
> the most part and 2) the folks that contribute don't have a lot of
> spare time. It *is* moving forward, though, and I expect we'll get to
> a solid, usable release eventually.

In case you're trying to find MC2, it looks like the new/latest home is 


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list