Do what you guys think is best. But as I have watched this list, I see a fair number of people requesting docs (I think I did once). I think these type of responses are harming the development of freenet.
If a few key people get really uninterested or very unavailible, this project could collapse. At the same time, people often talk about freenet as if it is the most important software project on the internet, and all other P2P or data haven projects are clueless when compared to freenet. How far do you think http would have gotten if everytime someone asked about it, someone responded: read the source to Mosaic. I think the documentation of the node and control protocols should be very high priority, or I think freenet is going to continue to have trouble atracting interest from developers. Just my two cents. Oscar (Boykin). On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:01:38AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:34:05PM +1300, David McNab wrote: > > How up-to-date is the present FNP spec at (hey, I can't even find it on the > > freenet site)? > > Not very. > > > Is there a current 0.4 FNP spec? > > Not really. > > > If not, will one be written that doesn't require RTFS? > > Not likely :-). > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -- > > Oskar Sandberg > oskar at freenetproject.org > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl -- boykin at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~boykin ICQ: 5118680 Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011015/7cc37dea/attachment.pgp>
