Hi Edgar -

As a meta comment, I think we're discussing two separate issues here.

One is how to label the image properly. I'd say that given we're using 
Monticello, the update number is somewhat useless in this context. I 
would argue that a dated version (i.e., SqueakX.Y-090907 for Sept 7th, 
2009) is more adequate. And yes, we could shorten that to "update number 
90907" if we wanted to ;-)

The second question is whether or not to provide (numbered) change sets. 
I have virtually no opinion on that since I find change sets inferior to 
Monticello as change sets lack the context and history provided with 
Monticello packages. If people find change sets helpful, then I guess 
yes we should provide them, but I'd rather have us invest more time into 
improving Squeak than providing a service that is rarely of use for people.

Asked concretely: Is there anyone out there who would continuously 
consume an update stream (for whatever purpose) instead of consuming the 
MC package updates?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> I attach the first .cs , the rest is made automatic.
> In this I do not change any and do not put any different to trunk.
> The .cs with number > 7173 could be exported from the image and the change
> to for have the SystemVersion current highestUpdate rising without changing
> others MC loads could be made different, off course.
> If Board agree , I put all, the .cs and the Squeak3.11-alpha.7335.image in
> my folder for some could polish and put in a best place.
> 
> Edgar