OK ... this is a bit premature in comparision to my thinking but on the other hand, you're right, people are starting to use the toolkit in a serious way. I was thinking we'd wait until beta or maybe our first final release.
One thing we need to do first is to think about a coherent version numbering scheme (before generating a bunch of upgrade scripts with embedded numbers). Thus far I've just left version numbers alone, as inherited from aD. Is this what we should be doing? Do we want to try to move package numbers to a "4.2" base as we get close to release? I haven't thought much about this, yet, other than to recognize that at some point we need to sit down and formalize (to some small extent, at least) our version numbering process. It doesn't help that the SDM currently only supports "beta" sub-numbering (note that the official SDM name for my alpha tarball is "beta 2").
Maybe I should spend part of a day jackhammering the SDM's numbering scheme into something more useful to us.
