Guys, releasing after so much time means a lot of pressure. Since all guys here want the best for Gajim I think that (a) there is no need to argue so much about stuff, just let it be for a while and a .1 will come and fix regressions and (b) let everyone take some days off relax and see what's the feedback then about 0.12. Afterall noone is /forced/ to update.
Next major release should be Gajim 1.0 On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 19:39, Jonathan Schleifer <js-ga...@webkeks.org>wrote: > Yann Leboulanger <aste...@lagaule.org> wrote: > > > As it's not possiblt to have private mail, let's continue here. > > > > Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > > > Yann Leboulanger <aste...@lagaule.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Jonathan Schleifer a écrit : > > > It's not. It's just that I want to show you that it's not true that > > > this is only affecting GPRS users. > > > > thousands of people uses svn version and have no problem, it's why I > > still thing xmpp ping is a good thing. > > Who also complained about frequent disconnects, yes. > > > You can look in trac, some people are disappointed because they send a > > message, and have no answer. They have to wait 10 minutes at least to > > know they are disconnected. Gajim is a *instant* messager. Having to > > wait 10 minutes to know we are no more connected is not an option in > > my opinion. > > And ping would help there how? Gajim would disconnect and can't > reconnect, as the connection is dead. If the connection wouldn't be > dead, TCP/IP would have fixed that already. If TCP/IP couldn't recover > the connection and it hangs, reconnecting won't work. The only case > where a reconnect might work is if TCP/IP interrupts the connection. > > > > I committed it to trunk, like always. And I told you that I do that > > > and asked you to backport it to 0.12. Plus, I'm not on the > > > translators list, as I can't subscribe, which I also already told > > > you. > > > > translations was for 0.12. I didn't see why it was for trunk. > > Because the translator based on trunk and also translated the XHTML > stuff etc. > > > And I > > don't know when you told me to commit it to 0.12 branch, nor why you > > can't do that. > > I don't backport changes to 0.12, you do. Noone except you committed to > the 0.12 branch at all. Everybody always committed to trunk and you > backported it. Why should that be different now? > > > As you cannot be in translators mailling list, I'll > > maintership to someone who can receive and review patches from other > > translators. > > You could just manually subscribe me… > > > > Why not send a blank space every 55 sec to avoid routers closing > > > idle connections? That would also detect if our connection is dead, > > > thanks to TCP/IP. And that's what one really understands when > > > talking about keep alive. What we do is ping, not keep alive. > > > > See my comments above. Having to wait 10 minutes for an *instant* > > messager is not an option in my opinion. > > You don't have to wait for 10 minutes. Either the connection can be > recovered and lags for a time, in which case a reconnect would fail, or > TCP/IP disconnects you, in which you can reconnect and it might > succeed again. But when a TCP/IP connection is dead, a reconnect won't > work either. So where's the point? > > Plus, it's not 10 minutes. It's only a long time if we don't send > anything. But sending anything doesn't mean we need to send a ping. We > can send a space, that's enough. If the TCP/IP connection has an error, > TCP/IP will close it on the next send. So we send a space and detect > that the connection isn't working anymore. No need to XMPP ping. > > > Sure we have to find a solution. But that can (and will IMO) take a > > long time ... > > There's no need for it to take a long time. Why not just send a space > every 55 sec and let TCP/IP handle it for us? You always compare having > no keep alive at all to having XMPP ping. Why not compare XMPP ping to > having a keep alive the normal way, which is sending a space? That > *WILL* force TCP/IP to close the connection if it's dead. > > I really wonder why every other client and all servers are fine with > just sending a space and why we are not… And I wonder why nobody > complained about dead connections not being detected by them… (Again: > No keep alive is something completely different than sending a space. > With no keep alive, it might really take 10 minutes) > > -- > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > Gajim-devel mailing list > Gajim-devel@gajim.org > http://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gajim-devel mailing list Gajim-devel@gajim.org http://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel