Mathew Fulmer said yesterday on irc, "mc1.6 worked fine for me. I was using it daily all last year".
Also regarding loading into trunk:
"well, hard to say if there have been a bunch of shifts in collections and compiler"
"may be an issue with traits too"
"loading kernel won't work with mc1.6, I'm pretty sure. it has traits"

However,  ftp://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/ already has MC 1.6, along with the latest Installer, LPF, and Sake/Packages.

Here's Keith's video from 4 months ago http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330 showing  how to use Sake/Packages to load AND unload Seaside 3.0.

If someone knowledgeable could get the trunk stuff loading into lpf-atomic using Sake/Packages, then we would be positioned to be quantum-leapt into the future.

Ken G. Brown

At 3:05 PM -0700 10/20/09, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:
>Hi Igor,
>
>no problem here except from the following issues:
>
>a) I don't even know where/how to load it. There is a bunch of conflicting packages on SqueakSource and zero instructions on what to load from where. Some information would be tremendously helpful.
>
>b) As far as I know nobody is using MC 1.6 at this point (if you do, raise your hand so I can see you). Given the critical nature of Monticello for development I'm not in favor of replacing a working and tested piece of infrastructure without extensive prior testing.
>
>c) It needs to support all the current features of Monticello (i.e., traits) or else it simply isn't fit for the intended purpose.
>
>If we can take care of the above, we can run an experiment like installing MC 1.6 into a 3.10 image and updating all the way through to the current trunk and make sure this works. At that point I would feel a lot more positive about MC 1.6 since what it means is that at least we know we can deal with the stuff that we've already been using.
>
>Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>
>Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>Hello people,
>>
>>i'd like to see some answers about the fate of MC 1.6. and its current
>>situation.
>>
>>1. I think everyone wants to have an atomic loading.
>>But according to my knowledge, MC 1.6. has some problems with Traits,
>>which prevets us from using it & fully replace the older version.
>>
>>2. Besides of that, are there any other reasons to not have it?
>>
>>So, please, can we disscuss (friendly & constructive), what we might
>>need to have it integrated in Squeak and in Pharo, so
>>we could benefit from having an atomic loading?