Hi Martin,

> If you want to split up testing and developing, then yes there are at 
> least 2 reasons for supporting Full in the same way the monolithic 
> image got supported. From what I saw on the mail list, there 
> is really the effect of what I called 'statistical testing' -
> sometimes even inadvertently testing by playing around.

I agree on this but (after reading the discussion) I had the impression that
the statistical testing is not generally recognized as being terribly
important (I am having some doubts myself about its effectiveness in
general). So what I wanted to do here is to provide a couple of arguments
where I _think_ people can understand the value of using "full" images and
update streams more easily.

> There were quite some bugs 
> and problems found this way. To have some 'statistical' testers it 
> should be made as easy as possible to have an actual alpha/beta/gamma 
> Full image.

I fully agree.

> In short words, any fragmentation of the 'scope' of procedures will 
> make things more difficult than with the old monolithic image. 
> Generally we should aim to mimic procedures regarding Full as if it 
> were the monolithic image. Just a modularized one. 

Yes.

Cheers,
  - Andreas