Ian Clarke <ian at freenetproject.org> writes: > One thing that was somewhat shocking is that they are actually using > Freenet 0.3, when I asked them why they answered that the main problem > with 0.4 was that we keep obsoleting previous versions which makes it > unsuitable for their use at this time. This is a shame as 0.4 contains > a number of important security improvements over 0.3.
Is any larger group besides them using 0.3 still? If that's not the case, they could just as well capitalise on build 490, or whatever. They will always be compatible amongst themselves. Of course, any "security in numbers" is lost. > Thus, I think we really need to consider seriously whether we can give > our user base some assurances as to how frequently we will increase the > last permitted build setting. It seems that given Freenet is working > relatively well right now (at least, better than 0.3) we might be > getting close. I would further argue that when we do this we should > call it 0.5 - we have procrastinated long enough. I don't believe you want to stifle development, so I guess an unstable branch is still needed. And for the evolutionary manner that most changes seem to take place in, this branch requires a large enough user base. So what's the plan? Induce the majority to stay with 0.5, and encourage enough to support 0.5 and 0.6 simultanously, so that the latter can be tested suitably well? What will be done to make this work better than the problematic 0.3/0.4 transition? I think it is imperative to provide a stable/unstable bundle that contained both versions of fred, and tools to insert content into both. This way the stable network could be kept alive while the unstable one gets enough exercise to prove its merits. FWIW, there /are/ certainly subprojects which would lend itself to being developed on a special branch, namely those which can be tested without needing many other nodes (a datastore rewrite, fproxy improvements, FCP changes, etc.) -- Robbe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.ng Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020815/2b87ddd6/attachment.pgp>
