Ian Clarke <ian at freenetproject.org> writes: > I am not proposing the release of a "stable" release of Freenet, rather > a release which is known to be buggy (hence the existence of > "RELEASE_NOTES" files), but which with compatability will be retained > while those bugs are fixed (I would say for at least 12 months). The > datastore bugs can be fixed without breaking protocol compatability with > previous node versions. > > Ian. >
I think that we're not breaking protocol compatibility at all, and that the "forced upgrades" are just ways for us to find out if our latest changes to the node actually help the network, instead of a myriad of ineffective ways we could be testing the node without subjecting it to the majority of nodes. Guaranteeing backwards compatibility is just a matter of abandoning the habit of bumping the last known good build to force upgrades. If we can be relatively sure that the current nodes wouldn't be damaging to a network of perfect nodes (at least as close to perfect as we can get in 12 months), then we _should_ move to much longer periods between forced upgrades. I'd be happy having a 6-12 month window of past nodes working, and making it a habit to only up the last good build no more than once every other month (maybe every third would be a good pace), so that people eventually upgrade, and not huge upgrade requirements, but just those that are 9-12 months old. Just an idea, Thelema _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
