The only point I would like to make is that it is important to be able  
to reproduce an image (and one day from a set of packages).
So if we could improve MC2 (colin is working on it) so that we can  
really build a cooler system with tests and
we could share changes (deltastreams) then it would be good.

 From the process point of view. I do not believe in a system where  
any fix can be loaded in the system.
There are so much subtle points that can break that this is important  
to keep Squeak a cool system.
Stef


On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:39 AM, Matthew Fulmer wrote:

> Edgar J. De Cleene, Keith Hodges, and I are going to hold a
> meeting on Skype this Saturday at 1600 UTC. We want to discuss
> what the next release process should look like, and would
> welcome input, especially if you are willing to help or have a
> tool that could help us with the release effort. On the agenda
> is:
>
> The main agenda items are:
> - How to maintain communication within the release team, and
>  with the wider community
> - Keith's Level Playing Field
> - Pavel's Kernel Image / Minimal Morphic
> - What to do about the update stream and the MC packages that
>  3.9 and 3.10 releases produced
>
> Secondary agenda items are:
> - Monticello 2 status
> - DeltaStreams status
>
> We most likely will not discuss specific changes/bug fixes that
> would be managed by the release team. The meeting is more an
> attempt to get some coherency into the release process, since
> there are now a few different directions the release team could
> go in. We welcome your input.
>
> I will record and post the meeting discussions
>
> -- 
> Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
> Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/808
>
>