Julian Fitzell wrote:

> Doug Way wrote:
>
>> Whatever we do, we need to handle the "classic SM1.0 problem" of not 
>> having package versions somehow for 3.6.
>>
>> I think your idea to duplicate the 9 packages with "XXX 3.6 release" 
>> may be the best option, since we'll probably need to change at least 
>> one of the packages in 3.7alpha before SM2 is ready.
>
>
> So much complexity!  Why can't we just release a full and a base image 
> every time we put up a new image?


The "XXX 3.6 release" renaming is not really that important to what I 
was proposing... we could always skip that.  I thought it might be 
useful to at least have 3.6 versions of the Squeak-Official packages out 
there and not have them overwritten/lost, regardless of what we do with 
the update stream.

> The updates should all still work fine when pulled into a base image 
> or a full image since they should only be touching the base image.


Exactly, this was the point I was making.  (There may be rare load-order 
problems due to arbitrary do-its, but mostly the full image should be fine.)

> So you can download whichever one you want and follow the updates 
> until a final release.


See my response to Goran, I merely wanted to add a convenience yes/no 
prompt for people to switch to Full if they want by loading the packages 
via SM.  I think this is actually simpler than regularly providing Full 
and Basic alpha images on the ftp site.  The update stream would still 
stick to the Basic image, but people with Full images could follow along 
also.

- Doug