Utter Chaos.

Doesn't sound to me like the most certain way to get a quick and stable
3.8 release, but it does sound like a fun and interesting experiment ;-)

Daniel

Michael Rueger <michael at squeakland.org> wrote:
> Avi Bryant wrote:
> > But that's no fun.  There seems to be a lot of talk about what might and 
> > might not work, when we could just be trying it out.  What's to lose?  
> > Say we build an "unstable" stream that ends up being a complete mess - 
> > the only people that are affected are those that were tracking that 
> > stream, and they can't have been expecting much anyway.
> > 
> > I suggest we try The Simplest Possible Thing, which is probably this: 
> > set up an alternate update stream, publish a code snippet that lets 
> > anyone point their image to it, and hand out the upload password to 
> > everyone with Master certification on SqP.  Then step back and see what 
> > happens.  My guess is that, like wikis, the system will be more robust 
> > than you give it credit for: if someone publishes a bad update, someone 
> > else will quickly remove it, and life will go on.
> 
> Thank you for stating my opinion so eloquently :-) ;-)
> 
> Except for the fact that I never registered on SqP, but that's a 
> different topic ;-)
> 
> Michael