Fyi, Freenet is using an ancient version of SnakeYAML.
Current version is 1.12
http://code.google.com/p/snakeyaml/wiki/changes
It might be worth looking into upgrading.
Sent from my wireless phone.
On Jul 20, 2013 6:51 AM, "Matthew Toseland"
wrote:
> On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 09:47:06 Veronica E
On Saturday 20 Jul 2013 09:47:06 Veronica Estrada wrote:
> Hi Toad,
>
> Could you elaborate more on the actual index tree and on the notation
> you use (for instance I guess for the chat with others that node could
> mean different things). This documentation should be clear and we are
> wasting l
>> >>what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size=
>=20
>> >>(/2, /4). "95" is so an odd number...
>> >
>> >Good idea, nobody uses them yet on 0.7 anyway...
>>=20
>> Well, i was beginning to use them, but change for a good reason isn't bad=
>=20
>> at all. I'd suggest 96*3
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
> >>>95x32 icons for freesites.
> >>what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
>>> 95x32 icons for freesites.
>> what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2,
>> /4). "95" is so an odd number..
>> >>what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size=
>=20
>> >>(/2, /4). "95" is so an odd number...
>> >
>> >Good idea, nobody uses them yet on 0.7 anyway...
>>=20
>> Well, i was beginning to use them, but change for a good reason isn't bad=
>=20
>> at all. I'd suggest 96*3
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
> >>>95x32 icons for freesites.
> >>what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at leas
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
95x32 icons for freesites.
what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2, /4).
"95" is so an odd number...
Good idea, n
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> >> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
> >
> >95x32 icons for freesites.
>
> what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2,
> /4). "95" is so an odd number...
Good idea, nobody u
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 07:01:09PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> Le Samedi 3 Juin 2006 03:16, Matthew Toseland a ??crit??:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > > > format right now would be:
> > > > > >
>> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
>
>95x32 icons for freesites.
what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2,
/4). "95" is so an odd number...
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:19:40AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
> >
> >95x32 icons for freesites.
>
> what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2,
> /4). "95" is so an odd number...
Good idea, nobody uses
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 07:01:09PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> Le Samedi 3 Juin 2006 03:16, Matthew Toseland a ??crit??:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > > > format right now would be:
> > > > > >
>> Regarding "activelinks", what do you mean exactly ?
>
>95x32 icons for freesites.
what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size (/2,
/4). "95" is so an odd number...
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu
Le Samedi 3 Juin 2006 03:16, Matthew Toseland a ?crit?:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > > format right now would be:
> > > > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
> >
> > I updated
Le Samedi 3 Juin 2006 03:16, Matthew Toseland a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > > format right now would be:
> > > > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
> >
> > I updated
On 2 Jun 2006, at 18:00, Jerome Flesch wrote:
The main changes I would make to the librarian
format right now would be:
- Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
I updated my format proposal on
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat to try to
fit your
requir
On 2 Jun 2006, at 18:00, Jerome Flesch wrote:
The main changes I would make to the librarian
format right now would be:
- Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
>
> I updated my format proposal on
> http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat to try to
> > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > format right now would be:
> > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
I updated my format proposal on
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat to try to fit your
requirements, but I still need some expl
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > format right now would be:
> > > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
>
> I updated my format proposal on
> http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFree
> Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
> the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
> why do we need two?
>
In fact, I didn't think you would agree to change librarian ... visibly, I was
wrong :)
> The main changes I would make to the
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:25:39PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
> > the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
> > why do we need two?
> >
> In fact, I didn't think you would agree to change librari
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:00:49AM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > > format right now would be:
> > > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
>
> I updated my format proposal on
> http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFree
> > > The main changes I would make to the librarian
> > > format right now would be:
> > > - Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
I updated my format proposal on
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat to try to fit your
requirements, but I still need some expl
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:25:39PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
> > the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
> > why do we need two?
> >
> In fact, I didn't think you would agree to change librari
> Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
> the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
> why do we need two?
>
In fact, I didn't think you would agree to change librarian ... visibly, I was
wrong :)
> The main changes I would make to the
Hello,
I designed an index format for the Fuqid replacement, and I wish to have your
opinion:
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat
--
Jerome Flesch.
Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
why do we need two? The main changes I would make to the librarian
format right now would be:
- Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
- Includ
Firstly, why do we need two index formats? I'm the first to admit that
the current Librarian index format is limited - way too limited - but
why do we need two? The main changes I would make to the librarian
format right now would be:
- Support splitting. (This is relevant to file indexes)
- Includ
Hello,
I designed an index format for the Fuqid replacement, and I wish to have your
opinion:
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat
--
Jerome Flesch.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-
30 matches
Mail list logo
