On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:44:40 +0000, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:24:41PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:30:11 +0000, Matthew Toseland > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [ re: dual-network nodes ] > > > > > It's a massive hack and I'm amazed it works... > > > > Well, the term "massive hack" is a little misleading. It's really > > just a simple adjustment of a few variables. > > Well, the way the code was designed is such that it is SUPPOSED to > disconnect from incompatible nodes. Hence my amazement that it works. But...if they're using the same protocol, then where's the incompatibility? As far as I can tell, both the latest stable and unstable are perfectly compatible with each other. We really might even wish to consider just going ahead and enabling the dual-network mode by default in versions 510x and 6026x. I think this could be a real boon to the currently existing network(s). Of course, 0.7 is bound to bring some radical changes, where we'd want to disable this feature again, but for now, it might be nice to build it into the downloadable packages, so everyone could benefit from it. -- 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]
