5 ms·

why aren't mentioning their failed rewrite from 3 years ago? https://www.monicahq.com/en/blog/chandler-is-in-beta/ https://www.monicahq.com/en/blog/chandler-is

• justinsaccount 15d ago
  and that Chandler is different from this Chandler? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software)
  • aitchnyu 13d ago
    Good ol days. I bought the book about the project's failure in 2012. They mentioned Python-Wx wrapper they created and I used it for a Python project.
• koralatov 15d ago
  The version numbering here is an absolute mess. Chandler/Monica 2 is actually Monica v5.x, which presumably means this newly announced Monica 3 is Monica v6.x? Chandler/Monica 2 (v5.x) was a bit of a disaster for Monica. The communication around it was confusing from the start: they stopped accepting pull requests for the original version to focus entirely on the new release – which then never materialised beyond betas. That killed development of the main version for a while, until they eventually started releasing minor v4.x updates alongside the v5.x betas. On top of that, they said you might not be able to import data from Monica v1–v4 into Chandler/Monica 2 (v5) due to a database layout change. Reading that sort of killed my use of Monica as a product. I’d been a heavy user up to that point, but the thought of burying my data in a version that might be abandoned soon really put me off. I’d been a small but fairly consistent contributor before Chandler/Monica 2 was announced, but between the confusing roadmap and possible data migration barrier, I haven’t contributed since.