[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-16 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:12:06 Luke771 wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This > > will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get > > something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensib

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-16 Thread Luke771
Matthew Toseland wrote: > Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This > will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get > something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion > on: > 1. What should be in 0.8? > 2. Whe

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-16 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:12:06 Luke771 wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This > > will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get > > something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensib

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-16 Thread Luke771
Matthew Toseland wrote: > Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This > will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get > something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion > on: > 1. What should be in 0.8? > 2. Whe

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-08 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Friday 08 May 2009 04:33:26 Jusa Saari wrote: > On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote: > > > Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to > > change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate > > the missing CHKs and reinsert them, y

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-08 Thread Jusa Saari
On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote: > Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to > change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate > the missing CHKs and reinsert them, yes? Or just use numerical procession: "1", "2" ... "23", "

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-08 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Friday 08 May 2009 04:33:26 Jusa Saari wrote: > On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote: > > > Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to > > change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate > > the missing CHKs and reinsert them, y

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Juiceman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jusa Saari wrote: > On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile >> (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Jusa Saari
On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile > (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and R stands for > Revocable not Redundant). (Reasonably easy) Trivial, actually. Simply add a field that c

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Jusa Saari
On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote: > Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to > change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate > the missing CHKs and reinsert them, yes? Or just use numerical procession: "1", "2" ... "23",

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Juiceman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jusa Saari wrote: > On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile >> (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and

Re: [freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Jusa Saari
On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile > (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and R stands for > Revocable not Redundant). (Reasonably easy) Trivial, actually. Simply add a field that c

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-07 Thread Matthew Toseland
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion on: 1. What should be in 0.8? 2. When to release 0.8? My current view:

[freenet-dev] What should be in 0.8, and when should it be released?

2009-05-06 Thread Matthew Toseland
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion on: 1. What should be in 0.8? 2. When to release 0.8? My current view: