> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Clarke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:13 AM > To: Discussion of development issues > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: Don't upgrade to 6269 > > > Todd Walton wrote: > > You (Toad) and whoever few also agreed to this beforehand > have basically > > taken control of everyone's node without permission, > inflicting, in the > > process, irreversible damage (removal of the routing table). > > Rubbish, nobody forced you to upgrade to the post-fork build, > and nobody > prevented you from subscribing to the CVS mailing list so you > could make > an informed decision about whether to upgrade.
I'd certainly expect something as important as this to be posted on "devl" and "announce". The CVS list is not enough. I may not have subscribed to the CVS list even if I knew of it's existence. Isn't the CVS list supposed to carry mainly info pertaining to CVS commits? Is the fork such a mundane detail? I think not. I'm personaly not displeased of the fork itself, only the breakdown in communications, i.e. properly informing all those nice people out there using unstable. Is the project doing them a service by releasing unstable builds, or are they doing a service for the project by using/testing it? In my company we have a particular client on whom we deploy major new features of our product and we tend to bend over backwards (to use an american term) for this client because of this priviledge. This particular fork is a more delicate matter than you and Toad assumed. Doc _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
