Hi all

After reading all this thread over my sllllloooowwwwwww modem I will 
try to sum up my point
and remarks.

- The current process is working. More process will not help.

- We need more people testing/writing tests/fixing. I think that 
everybody can contribute by writing
tests this way we will be able to have a real active documentation.

- I agree with ned that having a wilder alpha phase would help (we were 
slow down in KCP
because we had to consider the potential desynchronisation with the 
update stream).

- I agree with Tim peer review is the best way to get quality in. 
Everybody can be tired and make mistake. Mistakes are part of the 
process. I like to read when Ned and andreas argue about some morphic 
points because this gives me the confidence that something is 
improving.

- About managing the image with MC. I would like to get rid of 
changeset (at least the fact that they do not hold versions). I think 
that doing that we will have to address the point that MC packages
are weak (nathanael reported to me a lot of problems he encountered 
with them while working on the new version of traits). But again 
pressure is the drive for improvement. By the way we have a byte-code 
loader for MC.

- Finally I would like to say that even if having image managed by MC 
this will not solve the problem
I mentioned with my original email.
could we have a new tag in BFAV to report broken parts or part to 
refactor clean...?
[REP] Bookmorph saving broken
[REP] Class ZZZ should be removed
...
Then I think that we should identify some assets EventRecorderMorph, 
BookMorph and build some tasks forces. But I'm pessimist.



Stef