"Scott G. Miller" <scgmille at indiana.edu> wrote: >> That is why we make releases, people who want to try out Freenet can use >> the >> releases, while we can be free to work on it > > Ian, we agreed a couple of weeks ago that *we were breaking freenet on a > regular basis now*. So don't be surprised that interoperability was > hosed. > > People should be using 0.2.. Period.
the trouble is, we don't have interoperability with 0.2 either! If some people are using a non-encrypting 0.2 release and other people are using an encrypting snapshot, there is going to be a big mess when their nodes try to talk to each other. (Probably there is already.) We definitely have to have two separate Freenet networks if we are going to be breaking protocol compatibility for extended periods of time, and make sure that references from one don't "leak" into the other. To emphasize the separation, how about this: make the "snapshot" network use a different port by default. Then it would be easy for people to run both an 0.2 release and a snapshot on their machine at the same time, if they were so inclined, and it would be easy to tell which was which. theo -- PGP: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~twh1/ D5E5 0237 0592 CAF6 E4C4 967F 457E 9583 6AB4 876B _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
