On Monday 02 June 2008 14:47, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-06-02 14:15:02]: > > > Okay, what issues do we have here? > > > > 1. The processes page takes longer than the copying files page. In fact, most > > of the time of the installer is occupied by the processes page. > > > > IMHO the solution to this is to bundle everything which is essential with the > > base installer. Then the processes page will take much less time. Also we > > won't need a separate bundle-installer, so it will be easier to use in places > > where the Freenet website is blocked. The downside is the installer will be > > significantly bigger. > > I'm not convinced about that
Why? It won't be huge, if we don't bundle any unnecessary Huge Stuff (see below). And it's not small now. > > > 2. The installer shouldn't download Thingamablog and Thaw. They are huge, we > > have not audited the code, and users can get them if they want them. > > Debundling them would mean that as soon as we open the browser the Processes > > page will have completed, and the user can click Next and go on to creating > > icons. There seems to be a consensus on debundling, at least between Ian and > > Nextgens. :) I think a policy of not bundling anything we can't code review > > is reasonable, and clearly code reviewing Thingamablog for example would be a > > massive undertaking and isn't appropriate at this time. I do think we should > > keep the current plugins, however most of them are small. Even if we include > > the WoT plugin, that is also likely to be reasonably small for the > > foreseeable future. > > Ok, let's get rid of them then For reasons of code reviewability? Further to the above, I do actually review Thingamablog commits, however I haven't reviewed the original, and it's not really widely enough used that we can assume it to be safe? However, I do disagree with Ian's assertion that nothing we don't own is reviewable: it is much easier to hide bugs in C because you have buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities and so on. In Java, well written code *can* be reviewed, although of course more subtle bugs may slip through the net. Also I review jSite commits (I dunno whether the original on which the diffs are applied was reviewed though). > > > 3. Is it possible to change the names of the two panels? Copying Files vs > > Setting Up Freenet, perhaps? > > We could get rid of one of the panel before the processing one Good idea. > > > 4. Is it possible to open the browser after closing the installer rather than > > in the Processes page? > > Not "cleanly" but we could do a workaround time-delaying the browser > startup. I'm not convinced that's better than the alternative. > > > 5. Icons: We need proper icons for our various shortcuts. On unix the > > situation is worse: We have no icons. On Windows, Browse Freenet has the > > bunny icon and the rest don't have anything. > > Well provide me icons and maybe I'll consider using them :p https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2409 https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2026 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080602/d517c041/attachment.pgp>
