Adrian Lienhard wrote:
> It would be valuable to precisely identify the problems of MC because in 
> my experience it works very well for 80% of the cases (which we can't 
> say for change sets -- at least what I use MC for). So, the goal for 
> 3.10 (or for a dedicated "task force") would be to improve those 
> shortcomings.

Start here:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-February/101071.html

If you can fix the issues listed there (class renames, incremental shape 
modifications, migrations across these different versions, moving 
classes/methods between packages, integration of system-wide doIts, load 
order dependencies and all possible combinations of these) then I'd call 
MC functionally complete to deal with full system maintenance. It'd 
still be slow but at least a complete system maintenance tool. I'll stop 
short of the full list, if you can show how one solution subsumes 
another where possible.


Cheers,
   - Andreas