> Also, there is the question of how we want to go forward from here.
> For example, should we try to fix these issues in the current 3.10
> universe, or should we work forward from here and start fresh with a
> 3.11 universe at which point we could start running these tests for
> example weekly and have feedback about many of the above issues much
> earlier in the process. We could then also make a much more
> well-informed decision about what the "stable 3.11 universe" really
> means (i.e., for example only provide packages that pass the
> integration tests).

I think it would be ironic, if having put all of this work into
improving compatibility between images (aka LevelPlayingField) 3.11 were
to loose any compatability with 3.10 and the packages which work in it.

Therefore I would expect moving forward 3.11+ would support the 3.10
"universe" (as defined in Sake/Packages class PackagesDev), effectively
inheriting from it.  Items which are 3.10 only, having been obsoleted by
3.11+ would need to be moved from the PackagesDev to PackagesSqueak310
(which doesnt yet exist).

I myself dont see the goal of a "universe" to be just "all that works
perfectly". Sake/Packages also includes the idea of #beta packages,
which just load the latest code whatever it is. So in that case it might
be useful to automatically put feedback from your conflict tests into
the package definitions themselves. So that we can see the current
conflict finder test status. btw. Package definitions do have the
facility to store arbitrary documentation following the coded definition.

Keith