Hi Ken -

[Regarding ToolBuilder]
This is a matter of the amount of work that people can invest. I would 
very much like to keep the upstream repository for ToolBuilder in sync 
but I have only so much time to spend. If you (or anyone else) would 
like to help, I can add you as a developer to the squeaksource project. 
Just let me know.

[Regarding MC]
The problem I am having with the latest version in squeaksource is that 
as far as I know, nobody is using it. Yes, I've seen the "amused" 
comments on IRC about the trunk using such an outdated version - but 
it's the only version I know works, and so far nobody has proposed a 
viable upgrade path. But most importantly that code needs mileage; if 
you can find me someone who says they've been running it in production 
for a couple of months with a reasonable work load I would feel *much* 
better about it[*]. I'm not opposed to upgrading Monticello to any 
version that's in the repository but I'd like to have either some 
assurance that the code will be working out of the box (i.e., mileage) 
or alternatively the explicit commitment from someone (Keith or anyone 
else who knows their way around in the latest MC) to quickly fix issues 
that come up.

[*] For example, if you would load the latest MC into a 3.10 image, hack 
its ancestry so that it looks as if it's derived from the latest version 
in the trunk, and then just update all the way through, this would go a 
very long way in convincing me about that the code is stable.

[Planned work items]
I can only speak for my own plans here since I am in no position to tell 
other people what to work on. My main focus is currently in two areas: 
MVC removal (which is making progress) and some m17n simplifications 
(which you've seen discussions about). That and integration of existing 
fixes (strictly on a need basis) pretty much sums it up.

Others should comment themselves on what they are planning to work on.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Ken G. Brown wrote:
> Question:
> If ToolBuilder has its own repository, and changes to ToolBuilder are done at separate repository at squeaksource.com/DeltaStreams, then also put into the trunk repository, then it is found in trunk that a small fix is required to ToolBuilder, where would the be fix be stored? If done just locally to trunk,  how would it ever be possible to keep ToolBuilder in its separately loadable repository in sync?
> 
> Similarly for MC. I've seen the following go by:
> At 3:36 AM +0000 8/31/09, commits at source.squeak.org apparently wrote:
>> Andreas Raab uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The Trunk:
>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Monticello-ar.321.mcz
> 
> Yet it is clear that at the public repository for MC at http://www.squeaksource.com/mc/, that Monticello is already at at least version 492. How does the Andreas 321 change relate to the 492 version in the public MC repository?
> 
> What are the plans for keeping versions of separately loadable modules like Monticello, or ToolBuilder in sync?
> 
> Or if forking Monticello, shouldn't it have a different name?
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Are the planned work items for trunk documented anywhere?
> 
> Ken G. Brown
> 
> At 6:51 AM -0700 9/7/09, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote:
>> Matthew made some enhancements to ToolBuilder, which currently held in
>> separate repository at
>> squeaksource.com/DeltaStreams under the ToolBuilder-Kernel cat.
>>
>> Some of the changes would be really nice to integrate in trunk, like
>>
>> - renamed PluggableListSpec>>size to listSize
>> - added PluggableListSpec>>listItem, as an optimization to only fetch
>> items in view rather than the whole list, when scrolling
>>
>> or maybe i'm not aware, and they are already in trunk?
>> I just want to ask anyone who is interested to make an overview of
>> changes and decide if its safe to push them to trunk image (or
>> official ToolBuilder repository).
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
> 
> 
>