>What I meant when I said I'm not sure if SM2 "resolves the issue 
>we're talking about here" is the "problem" of allowing people to 
>really easily maintain a Full image which follows the alpha update 
>stream... I think this is what Michael was getting at.

I think too that it is very important to have an update stream for 
'Full', because this way 'Full' is tested most conveniently and most 
thoroughly. In fact the test of 'Full' is _the_ cardinal test, because 
'Full' is the release and 'Basic' is only part of it. 

Actually one of the differences of 'Full' and what is outside of it 
(SM), is that 'Full' gets tested fully :) meaning it has to be tested 
as a whole! 

To think we are testing 'Basic' and the additional packages which make 
up 'Full' only on demand by people who need them, is effectively 
making 'Basic' 'Full'. 

And to think that if such a package does not change it needs not to be 
tested again is plain wrong, the changes elsewhere in the release have 
to be tested against everything else in it.
 

>I think it's probably understood by most people that, long-term, 
>there won't be a single update stream for an image to simply follow 
>along, because the image will be broken down into a bunch of packages.

Why should the fact that the 'Full release' is modularized be an 
argument against an update stream for 'Full'? We should organize 
everything so that it has an update stream. 

I would even urge developers who are working on the evolution of the 
next Squeak release to develop in 'Full' and not in 'Basic' so that 
problems show up in the most direct way. 


Regards
Martin