Please read my other mail, subject Re: Another Drastic Solution.
A network reset may be just what is needed - and if so, we're not going
to inflict it on the whole freenet stable network, we're going to test
it on unstable first - an effective network fork. And when it's
sufficiently tested, merge
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:31:01PM -0700, Reskill wrote:
> >Run your own fork of freenet if you like, but you will not be able
> >to
> >enforce everyone running recent stable builds, and if you succeed
> >in
> >getting 90% of users onto it, development will suffer.
> >
> >--
> >Matthew J Toseland
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 12:25:02AM +0200, Menno Jonkers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Toad wrote:
>
> | I would like to point out ONCE AGAIN that we are nowhere near 1.0.
>
> Development may not be, but your users seem to be. Apparently there's
> quite a bunch of p
>Run your own fork of freenet if you like, but you will not be able
>to
>enforce everyone running recent stable builds, and if you succeed
>in
>getting 90% of users onto it, development will suffer.
>
>--
>Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Can I just clear something up here - theres so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| I would like to point out ONCE AGAIN that we are nowhere near 1.0.
Development may not be, but your users seem to be. Apparently there's
quite a bunch of people that judged the quality of the software of 6-12
months ago to be sufficient
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 11:04, Toad wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:38:02PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> >
> > Having our developers and beta testers refrain from connecting
> > to the live network is not going to remove the vulnerability
> > which has just been exposed. Rather, we have to fi
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:38:02PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 13:01, Reskill wrote:
>
> > I believe that without a clear definition between testing and stable
> > networks, recent occurrences regarding network degradation are bound
> > to happen again, sooner rather than
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 10:01:29AM -0700, Reskill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe this email to be extremely accurate and well written. It echos
> many of the calls we have been making over the last few days regarding
> a production network, and I would particularly like to draw attention
> to:
> >2) U
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Menno Jonkers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ian,
>
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> | As unstable's performance improves the notion of separate networks
> | looks increasingly less attractive and sensible.
>
> | [...] There is no reas
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 13:01, Reskill wrote:
> I believe that without a clear definition between testing and stable
> networks, recent occurrences regarding network degradation are bound
> to happen again, sooner rather than later. Much better, then, to push
> to a stable "clean slate" with the nex
Hi,
I believe this email to be extremely accurate and well written. It echos
many of the calls we have been making over the last few days regarding
a production network, and I would particularly like to draw attention
to:
>2) Users migrate to a new, separate production network. Current
>Freenet
>b
main network as long as
develoment nodes are worked on in a separate network, as suggested
below.
Pete
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Menno Jonkers
Sent: 12 October 2003 16:22
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: Smoketests (Was:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian,
Ian Clarke wrote:
| As unstable's performance improves the notion of separate networks
| looks increasingly less attractive and sensible.
| [...] There is no reason that Freenet nodes of differing abilities
| can't co-exist in the same network pro
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 11:08, Todd Walton wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tim McGrath wrote:
>
> > Just a clarification, although the prodnet/fidnet is still using the 692
> > that was patched for the anonyminity bug (Thanks toad, you really helped
> > us out a lot.) I will be soon working on trying
>If you're going to take responsibility for a fork, please also take
>>
>responsibility for ensuring the forked code doesn't bring down the
>>
>network as a whole.
He just wants to modify the code we're using as "stable" on Production
Freenet, which we do not endorse.
>
>Unless, of course, your
Todd Walton wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ian Clarke wrote:
There is no reason
that Freenet nodes of differing abilities can't co-exist in the same
network provided that new additions aren't so destructive as to take
everyone else down.
Well, the point of the prodnet idea is that, as recently witn
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tim McGrath wrote:
> Just a clarification, although the prodnet/fidnet is still using the 692
> that was patched for the anonyminity bug (Thanks toad, you really helped
> us out a lot.) I will be soon working on trying to fix some of the bugs
> I have seen in it without relyin
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ian Clarke wrote:
> There is no reason
> that Freenet nodes of differing abilities can't co-exist in the same
> network provided that new additions aren't so destructive as to take
> everyone else down.
Well, the point of the prodnet idea is that, as recently witnessed, we
As unstable's performance improves the notion of separate networks looks
increasingly less attractive and sensible.
Lets not forget the cost of separate production and development
networks. These include a smaller Freenet network overall with
Freenet's most dedicated node operators split betwe
All,
Id just like to reinforce our goal with this experiment. We aim to provide
a coexisting parallel network consisting of the latest stable (and thoroughly
tested) official build(s).
I dont consider this to be a fork at this time a code fork is not
one of our goals.
A little quote from a f
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 20:47, Pete wrote:
> This attitude is the sort of tabloid rubbish that landed the whole issue
> on /. The code that is being run on the network is pure freenet source,
> no hacks, no modifications other than to keep it from interfering with
> the main network, so they are runn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodland
Sent: 10 October 2003 23:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: It Has Begun
On Friday 10 October 2003 07:43 am, David Roden wrote
On Friday 10 October 2003 07:43 am, David Roden wrote:
> Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> > Or emply the slightly less strategy of ignoring them until they go
>
> away or the slightly more aggresive strategy of raising lastGoodBuild
> (as well as droping the site).
>
> Yeah, cool, let's apply some censorsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> Or emply the slightly less strategy of ignoring them until they go
away or the slightly more aggresive strategy of raising lastGoodBuild
(as well as droping the site).
Yeah, cool, let's apply some censorship to things we don'
24 matches
Mail list logo
