On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:40:35PM -0500, misty- at charter.net wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:25:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
> > >Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on
> > >about it but
At 07:40 PM 1/13/03, you wrote:
>Just a FYI here, but build 650 is *also* experiencing this very same
>bug. I'm getting tired of running broken nodes.
>
>Tim McGrath
I'd just like to add here that I seem to have no problems with broken nodes
(in general). For a project still in development, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would suggest that people always keep previous versions of freenet's
executables to prevent problems like this.
When I upgrade, I always backup the old .jar files (and rename them with the
build number). Then when I get a bad
build like 544, I
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:16:43PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 12 January 2003 08:22 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > misty- at charter.net (misty- at charter.net) wrote:
> > > The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would suggest that people always keep previous versions of freenet's executables to
prevent problems like this.
When I upgrade, I always backup the old .jar files (and rename them with the build
number). Then when I get a bad
build like 544, I
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:40:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:25:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on
about it but it's kind of
At 07:40 PM 1/13/03, you wrote:
Just a FYI here, but build 650 is *also* experiencing this very same
bug. I'm getting tired of running broken nodes.
Tim McGrath
I'd just like to add here that I seem to have no problems with broken nodes
(in general). For a project still in development, and
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 06:06:00PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > WE CANT ITS SOURCEFORGE'S FAULT IT WORKS FINE HERE
>
> Is it ok now?
Oddly enough, I just updated build 650 and it's working properly at
rendering now.
...
Maybe you should increment the build number just so people figure out
they
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:25:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
> >Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on
> >about it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most
> >annoying is that
> WE CANT ITS SOURCEFORGE'S FAULT IT WORKS FINE HERE
Is it ok now?
Ian.
--
Ian Clarkeian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com]
Latest Project http://locut.us/
Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/
Hmm
So much for stable builds, this issue should have been resolved already. Serves
me right for keeping my nodes up to date!
>Ahh, so they'll get an accurate first impression ^_^
>
>(relax guys, it's a joke :-p)
>
>- fish
Powered by CBFMail http://www.cbfmail.com
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:16:43PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 January 2003 08:22 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be nice if
someone
WE CANT ITS SOURCEFORGE'S FAULT IT WORKS FINE HERE
Is it ok now?
Ian.
--
Ian Clarkeian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com]
Latest Project http://locut.us/
Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:25:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on
about it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most
annoying is that its
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 06:06:00PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
WE CANT ITS SOURCEFORGE'S FAULT IT WORKS FINE HERE
Is it ok now?
Oddly enough, I just updated build 650 and it's working properly at
rendering now.
...
Maybe you should increment the build number just so people figure out
they
- Original Message -
From:
> Hmm
>
> So much for stable builds, this issue should have been resolved already.
Serves me right for keeping my nodes up to date!
If you want a good 543 build,
http://freenetproject.org/snapshots/freenet-543.jar should be up.
-Mathew
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
>Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on
>about it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most
>annoying is that its stripping out tags. This doesn't
>seem to be an issue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 January 2003 08:22 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> misty- at charter.net (misty- at charter.net) wrote:
> > The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be nice if
> > someone seriously took at look at this problem.
>
> For whatever
misty- at charter.net (misty- at charter.net) wrote:
> The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be nice if
> someone seriously took at look at this problem.
For whatever it's worth, I'm not seeing this problem with the node
that I compiled myself from CVS. I built it using ant and
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:05:42PM +0100, Frank v Waveren wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
> > Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on about
> > it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most annoying
> > is that its
Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I dont
mean to moan on about it but its kind of annoying for new and old users
alike. Most annoying is that its stripping out a ... /a tags.
This doesnt seem to be an issue running the later build 650. Thanks.
Simon
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on about
it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most annoying
is that its stripping out a ... /a tags. This doesn't seem to be an
issue running the
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:05:42PM +0100, Frank v Waveren wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 12:16:56PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
Is anyone actually going to fix build 544? I don't mean to moan on about
it but it's kind of annoying for new and old users alike. Most annoying
is that its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be nice if
someone seriously took at look at this problem.
For whatever it's worth, I'm not seeing this problem with the node
that I compiled myself from CVS. I built it using ant and jikes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 January 2003 08:22 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The 'fixed' build 543 IS 544. 544 is ALSO broken. It'd be nice if
someone seriously took at look at this problem.
For whatever it's worth, I'm
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:16:43PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
But in any case, it is definitely COMPLETELY BROKEN. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NOT
WORKING, in the snapshots on freenetproject.org and you should FIX THEM RIGHT
NOW, developers, unless you want everyone to think that you're COMPLETE
Hmm
So much for stable builds, this issue should have been resolved already. Serves me
right for keeping my nodes up to date!
Ahh, so they'll get an accurate first impression ^_^
(relax guys, it's a joke :-p)
- fish
Powered by CBFMail http://www.cbfmail.com
27 matches
Mail list logo