Andreas Raab has already published a package that creates updates
streams for SM packages. As to whether this would make things easier, I
don't know. For the case of KCP/MCP, seeing as they are not packages, I
think it would cause confusion by creating more update streams that are
to be applied to the base image.

And it doesn't solve what I think is KCP/MCPs biggest problem - they
need more people to work on the stuff, and especially to review it.

But I'm willing to be convinced.

Daniel

Karl Ramberg <karl.ramberg at chello.se> wrote:
> 
> 
> Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> > 
> > No problem
> > Take it easy, this was just that noury is visiting us and sleeping at
> > my place and we started to have a war plan and process.
> > 
> > Stef
> > On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> > 
> > > Hey Stephane.  No, I haven't gotten those enhancements coded yet.  I
> > > have been thinking about the code; I *really* want to get them done
> > > soon.  Work has just been crazy...
> 
> Could using a updateServer help:
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/486
> 
> What about having such a server for all squeak packages like
> Scamper and Celeste, too.
> 
> If we used Bert's subject name filter and got each package 
> a seperate bugsandfixes archive so the package maintainer 
> could point his/her Bugs Fixes Archive Viewer to the right package
> and go trough it's fixes and post them as updates to the package.
> 
> Then each package could have a update stream so you could use the 
> Squeak map version which is stable or bleeding edge loading upates
> for that package.
> 
> Karl