> > Hi Marcus, thanks for engaging a discussion.  The one 
> question I think 
> > you did
> > not address (because I did not make it explicit enough) is 
> what do you 
> > think of
> > using an optimistic approach?
> >
> > I know, I know, this is a scary thought, and I don't know 
> for sure how 
> > well it
> > would work, but..  when you said
> >
> 
> I don't think that this would work... at least not as long as 
> we use an 
> update-stream.
> It's realy easy to destroy the system with an update. We had 
> example of 
> faulty updates
> that manage to slip into the stream and replacing the 
> changesets on the 
> server is of
> course possible, but it disrupts everything somehow...
> 
> All in all I am sceptic that the "wiki" aproach could work for code. 
> Just think about the security
> implications... but it would be an interesting thing to think about a 
> system that would make
> this possible.

Hi Marcus, 

I agree with you about the danger of a faulty update, but... What about
using this optimistic approach but restricted only to trusted
developers. That is to Ned, Andreas, Tim and all the ones that in this
list are considered as experts? 

I might be wrong but what I am imaging is that if Ned's submitions are
auto-approved then the harvesters and reviewers will only have if not a
few then a lot of submitions less to check. After all Ned is a big
powerful bug fixing machine (with all the due respect) :)

I see this as only a transition to when the image will be splited and
being taken care by different maintaners.

Oh btw, wouldn't Monticello help us if instead of submitting changesets
we submitted mcz files? I mean for going back a version or two if
something went wrong with an update.

Well, that were my two cents. Please treat me kindly. I am afraid of
posting under this topic :)

Regards,
Hernán