Avi Bryant wrote:


> Monticello is actually much closer to the lab journal - it's intended to 
> capture not just the finished state of the code, but various checkpoints 
> along the way.  It doesn't do this linearly (as a changes file 
> effectively does) - if you do an experiment, reject it, revert to a 
> previous state, and continue from there, that branching structure will 
> be captured.  This is very useful if you later decide you want to merge 
> two such branches, since it can do this semi-automatically by comparing 
> them against their common ancestor.
> 
> Monticello may not have the granularity you want, however - it only 
> records the state of your source code when you explicitly tell it to, 
> not every time you edit a method.  On the plus side, when you explicitly 
> save the state Monticello encourages you to log some notes about that 
> state, which makes reviewing your past work easier.
> 
How much work would it be to to have MC track the individual 
compilations so that changelog like facilities could be integrated with 
the current ones?

tim