On Friday 23 October 2009 23:54:36 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 23 October 2009 23:27:34 zero3 wrote:
> >
> > Awesomeness!
> >
> > Did the merge succeed without issues? Any problematic conflicts?
>
> Several files had issues, I sided with the beta branch.
> >
> > The reason for the "Browse Freenet" to "Launch Freenet" rename in the first
> > place, was that Freenet is starting to do much other stuff than "browsing
> > [websites]". Mail, forums, IM, file sharing. "Browse" sounds a bit
> > misleading as a common verb for that. Maybe something completely different?
>
> Open Freenet?
> >
> > I'm responsible for turning the incognito flag back on. I really think the
> > block should be placed in Freenet (by simply checking the user-agent), as
> > the block can then easily be removed on a new build when Google have fixed
> > Chrome. If it's placed in the launcher, we can't push the update to enable
> > it again later on, as we depend on people updating their helper executables
> > themselves. Which they probably won't (it's possible via the new tray
> > manager though).
>
> Hmmm, okay. It is disabled in fproxy at the moment, so I will reinstate the
> change you made, but I will add comments on both sides.
>
Done. Any thoughts on Launch Freenet vs Open Freenet? We do tell the user that
it will run in the background anyway, so maybe launch is okay?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20091024/66d18718/attachment.pgp>
