Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
[BIGSNIP]
> However, for the short and medium-term, I think we probably could still 
> support a Full release following an update stream reasonably well.  What 
> do you think about the "option 2.5" that I suggested earlier?  (Adding 
> an update-stream prompt for people to upgrade back to Full if they want, 
> but keeping a single update stream.)  I think this might be the best 
> compromise, because it really doesn't harm the Basic image update 
> stream.  The update stream will still primarily follow the Basic image, 
> but people can use the same stream with a Full image also if they want.
> 
[ANOTHER SNIP of reasoning]

In short - I am a bit with Julian I think. I would conceptually much
rather have the updatestream follow Basic and not need to worry about
the packages much. And then of course when we release 3.6 we simply
produce a Full image (by simply installing a loadscript and saving that
image) available for download.

The Full image should (as you explained) be more or less updateable
through the update stream, since we would follow the rules you outlined.
Why do we need to push the package through the update stream?

Perhaps not getting it. :-)

regards, Göran