|- The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011025/83d41942/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:12:54PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > The code in cvs is still badly broken. Pitching it as usable would be
> > devious and irresponsible.
>
> I am obviously not proposing that we misrepresent the
On Thursday 25 October 2001 15:04, ian wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:51:17PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > Well, everybody who are trying to use 0.4 are having lockups and loops
> > several times a day, as well loosing the datastore every now and then.
>
> I have been running 0.4 on
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 11:14:09AM -0600, Bryan Derksen wrote:
<>
> Remove the 0.3 version from the web page without putting up 0.4 to replace
> it, and with only the note "temporarily taken down for development
> reasons" or something similarly ambiguous. Five minutes later, a thousand
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:04:47PM +, Timm Murray wrote:
> > > > It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to
> > > > be
> > > > put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though
> > > > preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not
The code in cvs is still badly broken. Pitching it as usable would be
devious and irresponsible.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 09:33:24AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> So, I think the rule of thumb about when 0.4 becomes 0.5 is when it is
> more stable then 0.3. I have been waiting for Tavin to check in
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 04:41:03PM +0100, degs wrote:
> On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, Timm Murray wrote:
> > > On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
> > > > In local.freenet, you wrote:
> > > > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting
> > > > > freesites as a
non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011025/1da21660/attachment.pgp>
> > > It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to be
> > > put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though
> > > preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not gzipping the
> > > individual pages, as long as clients support it
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 09:33:24AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> So, I think the rule of thumb about when 0.4 becomes 0.5 is when it is
> more stable then 0.3. I have been waiting for Tavin to check in his new
> datastore code which will hopefully fix the only significant remaining
> bug that I am
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, degs wrote:
> On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:13, Timm Murray wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting
> > > freesites as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the
> > > site. (Or two archives -
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:13, Timm Murray wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
> > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
> > two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
>
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:29:00AM -0500, Mark J Roberts wrote:
> Volker Stolz:
> > In local.freenet, you wrote:
> > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
> > > as
> > > a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
> > > archives
> On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
> > In local.freenet, you wrote:
> > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
> > > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
> > > two archives - one for the static portion and one for
> Hi,
>
> It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
> a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
> archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
I've suggested this before. The only thing is that viewing
In local.freenet, you wrote:
> It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
> a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
> archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
Can you think up a reason why this isn't
On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
> In local.freenet, you wrote:
> > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
> > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
> > two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's
ignature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011025/d5250b84/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +0100, degs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
> a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
> archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
>
> This
> The dilemma is that people seem to be voting with their feet as to which
> version they think is more stable - just about all of the 0.3 freesites
> have migrated to 0.4 - yet we are still getting thousands of downloads
> of 0.3 daily... all of whom are likely to be rather disappointed.
>
able
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011025/e8e4a2ce/attachment.pgp>
Hi,
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
This could make both retreiving freesites more reliable due to the
disappointed.
Thoughts anyone?
Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011025/b0b312ed/attachment.pgp>
Volker Stolz:
> In local.freenet, you wrote:
> > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
> > as
> > a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
> > archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
>
> Can you
Sure, making Freenet available as an NT service makes sense. I have no
experience with services though and would have to experiment a bit first. I'll
look into the given examples and see if I can get it working. if somebodz else
is faster or wants to support me with this, feel free to step
I wrote
> Anyway, it wouldn't execute net.exe, it would go directly through the SCM
> but the end result would be the same. If implemented properly, the
systray
> app could send configuration requests directly to the service
and then Ian Clarke wrote
> Yes, but remember that we must still
> > o The freenet systray application assumes the node runs like any
normal
> > executable file. In fact the freenet systray application stops and
> > restarts the node at will
> Could the systray applet not simply execute appropriate "net.exe start
> " or "net.exe stop " to start and stop
Volker Stolz:
In local.freenet, you wrote:
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
Can you think up a reason
Hi,
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites as
a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or two
archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
I've suggested this before. The only thing is that viewing Freenet
On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
In local.freenet, you wrote:
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:13, Timm Murray wrote:
Hi,
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert).
I've
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, degs wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:13, Timm Murray wrote:
Hi,
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting
freesites as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the
site. (Or two archives - one for the
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, Timm Murray wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
In local.freenet, you wrote:
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting
freesites as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of
the site. (Or two
So, I think the rule of thumb about when 0.4 becomes 0.5 is when it is
more stable then 0.3. I have been waiting for Tavin to check in his new
datastore code which will hopefully fix the only significant remaining
bug that I am aware of (I believe there are workarounds for the
heisenbugs and
The code in cvs is still badly broken. Pitching it as usable would be
devious and irresponsible.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 09:33:24AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
So, I think the rule of thumb about when 0.4 becomes 0.5 is when it is
more stable then 0.3. I have been waiting for Tavin to check in
The dilemma is that people seem to be voting with their feet as to which
version they think is more stable - just about all of the 0.3 freesites
have migrated to 0.4 - yet we are still getting thousands of downloads
of 0.3 daily... all of whom are likely to be rather disappointed.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 11:14:09AM -0600, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Remove the 0.3 version from the web page without putting up 0.4 to replace
it, and with only the note temporarily taken down for development
reasons or something similarly ambiguous. Five minutes later, a thousand
paranoid geeks
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:12:54PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
The code in cvs is still badly broken. Pitching it as usable would be
devious and irresponsible.
I am obviously not proposing that we misrepresent the stability of the
code to anyone.
The question, however, is whether it is
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:12:54PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
The code in cvs is still badly broken. Pitching it as usable would be
devious and irresponsible.
I am obviously not proposing that we misrepresent the stability
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 04:41:03PM +0100, degs wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, Timm Murray wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote:
In local.freenet, you wrote:
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting
freesites as a single redundant
It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to be
put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though
preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not gzipping the
individual pages, as long as clients support it transparently.
Can
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:04:47PM +, Timm Murray wrote:
It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to be
put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though
preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not gzipping the
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:51:17PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
Well, everybody who are trying to use 0.4 are having lockups and loops
several times a day, as well loosing the datastore every now and then.
I have been running 0.4 on both Windows and Linux machines for over a
week now without
On Thursday 25 October 2001 20:00, Tony Godshall wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +0100, degs wrote:
Hi,
It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites
as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or
two archives - one for the
On Thursday 25 October 2001 15:04, ian wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:51:17PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
Well, everybody who are trying to use 0.4 are having lockups and loops
several times a day, as well loosing the datastore every now and then.
I have been running 0.4 on both
Marco A. Calamari ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In 0.4 how I can retrieve a key in the future
or in the past ?
Is the 0.3 method, i.e
/mmddhh-name//
still valid ?
No, it's not.
In 0.4, the developers decided to use a non-human-readable date format.
So intead of
46 matches
Mail list logo
