Re: "Internal" updates (was: RE: Possible extra text

[email protected] appears to have written:

> Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > I think we should definitely convert, for the 3.5 cycle, to one update
> > stream. We already have mechanisms to protect the wary - stop updating
> > when you get to a "Continue updating for 3.5a" question.
[snip lots]
The problem I have with this approach is the high probability of needing
to retract changes. How?
a) take it out of the update stream and tell people to restart from the
last release? Oh, and what about intermediate changes that relied on
some parts of the retracted one?
b) add another update that undoes it; with the added need to compensate for any
intermediate changes that have touched the same area?

I posutlate that we need several holding areas: one (like the current
sqfixes page but up to date) for offered changes, another for changes
considered of interest by at least one guide and another for changes
agreed on by at least two guides. This last would essentially be the
internal update stream used for a last opportunity to check things. It
_could_ be seen as an alpha stream and made accessible to any brave
fools willing to put with whatever is the chosen solution to the above
problem.

tim 
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Programming just with goto's is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.