On 9 nov. 07, at 05:00, Andreas Raab wrote:

>
> So what I'm wondering is, how can DS be used such that they  
> overcome the problems with Monticello and how would one apply them  
> to such uses. The main area that I see relates to "versions of  
> packages". By far the biggest shortcoming of change sets is that  
> they have no idea of versions and packages and because of that the  
> use of change sets is currently mutually exclusive with the use of  
> Monticello (don't get me started about this Frankenstream that is  
> currently used to deal with MCZs as updates).

may be I do not understand your english so if I'm off discard my email.
Now if you refer to our attempt to use MC to manage 3.9. We tried and  
this was worth doing it. Now we have a version of MC with 1000 times  
faster
load. But it is not in a sharable state. Having a much faster MC  
would made it a completely other story.
I think that having packages based on MC or not is really important  
even for managing images. Now may be not for shipping updates. :)
what would be nice is to be able to use deltastreams as cs for update  
and mark the result as versioned package on the client.
Or even that we work with packages, then the update computes deltas  
and send them and that the packages get versioned on the updaters.

Stef