> No, I think we should explicitly include instructions in the update
> stream to pull in specific new versions from SM.  That way you'll
> always get the right version for the update level you are at, and it'll
> always come at the right point in the stream.  If you just always pull
> in the latest version you're bound to run into trouble (particularly if
> you're updating an image that hasn't been updated for a while).

I don't buy this argument. Mostly because there's not much of a difference
between the updates and packages. Just as food for thought ... what would be
if we define "image version" in a similar form that we define MC package
versions? If we did, then we *should* be able to declare an appropriate
dependency, shouldn't we?

If our current release process isn't able to handle this problem then it
really feels as if that's something that is fundamentally missing. After
all, it is one of the primary styles of working so it really should be
possible to state such a dependency in pretty much the same as we state
dependencies between packages.

Cheers,
  - Andreas