Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:

> We probably don't want to require this as a standard practice, but for 
> something like KCP or MCP which has sweeping changes, it's probably a 
> good idea.
There are two obvious possibilities involving no new tools:-
a) do the kcp/mcp work in a 5180 (or thereabouts) image and then
carefully work in the subsequent changes
b) do it in a 5180(ditto) image and provide the 'naive' changesets for
some volunteers to work on to separate out in-image from in-package
code.

Both involve work it would be nice not to spend time on but both save
the time involved in making tools. If time-to-finish is important that
might be an acceptable balance.

tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
All new: The software is not compatible with previous versions.