Hi Göran,

>I agree with Michael, there is no change in practice I think. If a
>package isn't being used then it isn't being tested - regardless if it
>is in the image or not.

And if it is not in the image, it is not being used and so it will not 
get tested. That would be a big change in practice. 

The Full-stream would give us a cheap testing-setup by giving as many 
people as possible the chance to play around with Full _before_ the 
release, even if we can't test everything 100%. 


>> > - Will packages that are not part of the Base image also have some
>> >   kind of update stream, or will they only be replaced in toto on
>> >   SqueakMap?
>> 
>> That is very much up in the air right now, part of the reason for 
>> the many messages that have been flying around.
>
>Yes, this is in the air. I assume you mean the official Squeak 
>packages (currently the famous 9) and not *all* packages on SM. I 
>also assume that we will decide on a common strategy for these 
>packages. But we haven't done so yet. Andreas has made a hack 
>available for setting up updatestreams per packages that works with 
>SM1. SM2 will include some fields for this.
>
>But perhaps we will instead choose to use Monticello for these 
>packages and not "stream of a bunch of ChangeSets" at all.

Think of shrinking and converting Basic more and more to Full-packages.
Then more and more development will take place in the Full-packages. 

Again I must say we should either have a real update stream for Full  
( including the Full-package-updates ) or a combination of image- and 
package-update streams. Or something else, but in the end the updating 
should be incremental and automated. To download and override complete 
packages is too clumsy. 

Regards
Martin