On Wed, 03 May 2000, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > Now that we have automatic builds it is particularly important that we > > > endeavour never to break the code in CVS. > > > > I somewhat disagree. We should try to avoid breaking the compile, but I > > think its perfectly alright to break compatibility (in the non-stable > > tree). > > That's what I mean - we shouldn't break the compile. We shouldn't > change compatability without inviting comments from this mailing list > first, and warning people on the mailing list.
People who want to test / play should use the stable release. If we are to not be able to change the protocol of Freenet this early in the development then we are not going to get anywhere. Encryption has been discussed here, and there is no way to get it in without breaking the protocol. I though everyone was in the clear about this. (Not to say there is not a way to make a protocol that can negotiate "no crypto" if both nodes allow it, but there was no provision for this in 1.2). > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
