On 2011/08/25 (Aug), at 2:15 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
And we never, ever, ever, have enough data to evaluate a single
build, even on the simplest metrics (see the push-pull tests). I
could write a plugin to get more data, but digger3 promises to do it
eventually and anyway I don't have time given the remaining funding
and unlikeliness of getting more. And it's always been this way!
Our whole business model forces me to just do things and not
evaluate them!
I think we had an idea for empirical stepwise advancement earlier.
With an investment of developer time, we could separate the current
freenet code into three interfaced sections (link-layer, routing-
layer, user/client-interface-layer).
If we then were to modify the outer layers to accept two routing-
layers (e.g. client requests round-robin between the two but
thereafter stay in that network) we could have "two networks in one" a
stable-net (for the nay-sayers, a disaster/fallback, and as a control
for measurement), and a development-net where experimentation could
take place.
Drawing the interface lines on theory (rather than present code-state)
would be critical [e.g. load-balancing should be in the middle layer,
imo]. The goal being, reliable communication with near-guaranteed/
methodical improvement.
--
Robert Hailey
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
