goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

>In short - I am a bit with Julian I think. I would conceptually much
>rather have the updatestream follow Basic and not need to worry about
>the packages much. And then of course when we release 3.6 we simply
>produce a Full image (by simply installing a loadscript and saving that
>image) available for download.
>
>The Full image should (as you explained) be more or less updateable
>through the update stream, since we would follow the rules you outlined.
>Why do we need to push the package through the update stream?
>
>Perhaps not getting it. :-)
>  
>

I think we are not really that far apart here, and I need to explain 
"option 2.5" better:

If we do this, the update stream *will* follow Basic, period.  The extra 
one-time update-stream prompt is merely a convenience to easily let 
someone switch back to a Full image if they want.  We would not be 
adding any packages directly to the update stream.  If someone answers 
"yes" to the prompt that they want to load the Full packages, the update 
stream would execute a one-liner which would load the "upgrade to full" 
package from SM.  If they answer "no" (which is arguably the default 
choice), nothing happens.

For those who answer "yes", installing remotely from SM (instead of 
including the packages directly in the update stream) is acceptable in 
this case IMHO because following the update stream with a Full image 
will be an imprecise endevour anyway.  Using a Basic image to follow the 
update stream will be precise, though.

If someone refers to a "fresh" 3.7alpha-5982 image, it will mean a Basic 
image with precisely defined content.  If someone claims to have a 
"fresh" 3.7alpha-5982 image which is also Full, the content may vary 
slightly because of load-order issues (when the packages were loaded 
versus when updates were loaded, etc.).  Things should still generally 
work for Full-image updaters, though, because the update stream will 
never overwrite anything in the external packages.  But the Basic image 
is still the "canonical" image.

I think the convenience prompt is important because a lot of people 
don't follow the list closely and may not know about the existence of 
the "upgrade to full" script for example.  The prompt will make it 
extra-easy for someone to have a Full image following the update stream 
without figuring out what they need to load.

(I suppose that whenever we remove more packages from the image via the 
update stream in the future, we could include a similar prompt to 
re-load them for folks who want to keep following with a Full image.)

How does this sound? :-)

- Doug