> Am I right in thinking upgrading to NGR wiped the old routing and loaded
> new seeds? Was so long ago since I did it.
It will wipe the old rt (and use new seednodefs) yes..
/N
___
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/c
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 08:43:35AM -0700, Todd Walton wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > For the stable merge of the current unstable code, which will likely be
> > 5029, we should consider the benefits of increasing lastGoodBuild to
> > 5029. Some say that 5028 is next to us
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:34:27PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> For the stable merge of the current unstable code, which will likely be
> 5029, we should consider the benefits of increasing lastGoodBuild to
> 5029. Some say that 5028 is next to useless, however some of the best
> nodes in routing
Todd Walton wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ian Clarke wrote:
For the stable merge of the current unstable code, which will likely be
5029, we should consider the benefits of increasing lastGoodBuild to
5029. Some say that 5028 is next to useless, however some of the best
nodes in routing tables
>If you set lastGoodBuild in 5029 to 5029, then new builds will have
>no one
>to talk to.
Incorrect. 5029 will still make requests to 5028 nodes, but it will prevent
5028 nodes from announcing into the network and effectively weed them
out over time. AFAIK.
>Better to set lastGoodBuild to 5028,
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ian Clarke wrote:
> For the stable merge of the current unstable code, which will likely be
> 5029, we should consider the benefits of increasing lastGoodBuild to
> 5029. Some say that 5028 is next to useless, however some of the best
> nodes in routing tables I have seen
For the stable merge of the current unstable code, which will likely be
5029, we should consider the benefits of increasing lastGoodBuild to
5029. Some say that 5028 is next to useless, however some of the best
nodes in routing tables I have seen are 5028 nodes - so perhaps not.
Thoughts?
Ian
