On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:47:14 +0000, Roger Hayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad J. > Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:31:21 +0000, Roger Hayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd Walton > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:30:33 -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier > >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >Please excuse the crossposting, but I felt this was important > >enough > >to make sure it was seen by those who may not be subscribed > >to this > >or that list. > >> > > >> >Right. But the No-No about crossposting is that there are likely > >to > >be others who would not agree that it's important enough to > >> >cross-post. > >> > > >> > >> Then it's hard to be off-topic in chat, isn't it? For instance, I > >> might remark that probably not many stable nodes will be upgraded > >> unless some one builds a snapshot and increments the build number. > > > >Well, the dual-network capability is not enabled by default in the > >source code, and has never been enabled in precompiled packages, so > >anyone wanting to use it would still have to get the sources, > >uncomment the two relevant lines in Version.java, and build a new > >freenet.jar for themselves. > > > >In other words, it's still pretty much of an "elite" feature, and > >will most likely remain so. > > > > Maybe I misunderstood you: I thought you were hoping for many stable > nodes (rather than dual-network nodes themselves) to be updated. All > I was saying was that not many are likely to be updated unless you > have a new build number and new snapshots available for said stable > nodes. -- > Roger Hayter No, I just wanted to try to get the word out to as wide a potential audience as possible. I would *hope* that people involved enough in freenet to undertake running a dual-network node would be subscribed to at least one or two of these lists, but it's impossible, of course, to know for sure if they are, or to which ones, so I just used the "spray paint" approach. :-) The update itself doesn't really warrant a new build number, IMHO (or maybe it does; I don't know). At any rate, for the "average" stable user, the update is completely irrelevant and can be safely ignored; it's really only the "elite" group of dual-network node users that needed to be informed, and I just wanted to cover all the bases in one fell swoop. The reason I felt it was so important was that, prior to this update, the dual-network functionality was, in effect, pretty badly broken (at least from the stable side), so I felt there was a certain urgency in getting the word out. I also feel very strongly that the dual-network nodes serve a very vital function, bridging the two otherwise completely separate networks and helping to propagate data between the two, thereby helping to enrich freenet's content for everyone. I hope I've cleared up any possible misunderstandings now. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- "In Unix veritas" _______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
