Sorry to say this again; images are (almost always) a personal thing, therefore
sharing them is sharing something personal and should be done with great care
or not at all; all this discussion trying to hash it out just proves it.

So I still think the problem to solve is "ultimate image configuration."  If
someone gives me an image, its pretty much guaranteed I will want my own
personalization (i.e., my preferred tools, etc.).  So if I have to do image
configuration anyway, why wouldn't I just configure it with whatever you're
trying to deliver to me in the image you're sharing in the first place?

The answer is, we don't have the tools to do it (or, we probably do but most of
us aren't using them).  We are using Monticello to share code but what to share
other objects in the image?

Now, I realize some lower-level work such as Traits may require image sharing,
but the general-case, sharing objects such as Projects, should be solved
generally.

 - Chris


> On 11/5/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > If there is no
> > sensitive data in the image, then there is nothing to remember about
> > sensitive data.
> 
> And is there? Apart from the obvious bit? What about that
> company-internal presentation in that project nested three levels
> deep? It'd be nice if you could mark a project 'sensitive' and
> scrub&save would notice it, no? Bummer if you hand out an image with
> salary figures but the odd MC password safely in an external file ;) ...