On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:05:31PM +0200, Menno Jonkers wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jay Oliveri wrote: > | [...] But users express valid concerns when they ask about freenet's > | maturity when the entire network apparently goes to hell. [...] These > | are people we want using freenet, regardless of their technical > | background. [...] Even someone with a level of skill isn't going to > | waste time on a project that is simply broken or appears to be. [...] > | I still believe a comprehensive simulation platform would provide a > | lot of answers. At least it would lessen the impact of rolling out a > | shaky build to hundreds of unsuspecting (and non freenet-dev) users. > > Amen. > > A large user base that wants the software to simply do what it's > supposed to do; parties threatening to fork; internal disputes and > quibbles getting media exposure: the growing pains of a project moving > from a niche to mainstream relevance. Hurray! > > The current discussion was bound to happen at some point in time. Once > there is a user base with a vested interest in a working system, > production and development environments don't mix well anymore. Of > course serving the needs of the typical relatively passive, > techno-ignorant and ever-complaining end-user aren't high on a > developers priority list by default, but hey, if they didn't exist his > work would be pretty irrelevant.
The users do not want the system to continue to just about work very slowly and unreliably either. Even when it was working there were plenty of grumbles. > > As already suggested two separate networks, both under the > Freenet-umbrella, can take a lot of pain away. Of course you can't test > everything in a smaller development network, especially with the complex > interactions of Freenet, but surely a lot of the bugs recently fixed > would have also been found in a smaller size network. And testing can be The stuff in 6222 was found on a local test network, and there is probably more. I can only apologize so many times within the lifetime of the universe! > done more extensive if developers don't have to worry about screwing up > or compromising the production environment. And the nice design Absolutely, this applies at the branch level as well as the network level. We REALLY need to get unstable to a point where we can merge it. > principle of keeping NGR local to a node allows fine tuning release > canidates within the production environment by adding a limited number > of test nodes. > > So it seems a lot of things are already on the right track for this > move. And there seems to be agreement about it. So let's move on then. > And stay polite. > > Cheers, > > Menno -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
