On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:30:39AM -0500, Robert Soros wrote:
> Take this suggestion for what its worth (as my opinion currently holds
> none in this conversation.) Don't make any release with the current
> stable build, nor any NGR build for that matter. In my humble opinion
> this would be the
Take this suggestion for what its worth (as my opinion currently holds
none in this conversation.) Don't make any release with the current
stable build, nor any NGR build for that matter. In my humble opinion
this would be the single biggest mistake the project could possibly
make. Ian, You oft
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:46:04AM -0500, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 01:31, Pete wrote:
> > Just looked at my nodes stats before I close it down for the time being
> > and I noticed this figure
> > Outbound connections that are to peers not in the routingtable
> > 20.37037%
> >
gt; >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> >>Sent: 01 December 2003 00:19
> >>To: Discussion of development issues
> >>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] stable net kicking a
needs to
send the answer to A, connection BA is established)
/N
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Soden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of development issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-dev] st
Quoting "Edward J. Huff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I asked how these connections got established.
> It seems we _never_ send
> requests to nodes not in the RT. Ergo, they
> were in the RT but got
> dropped. I haven't checked the code to make
> certain, however.
I didn't see any questions asked ab
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 01:31, Pete wrote:
> Just looked at my nodes stats before I close it down for the time being
> and I noticed this figure
> Outbound connections that are to peers not in the routingtable
> 20.37037%
>
> Why aren't these peers being added to the routing table? They obviously
>
Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
>>Sent: 01 December 2003 00:19
>>To: Discussion of development issues
>>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] stable net kicking ass
>>
>>
>>Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
>&
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] stable net kicking ass
> Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> > I still think its a good idea to invest some toadtime into polishing it
> > before 0.5.3, but so far its kicking ass.
>
> That is good news, and yes -
et again
Pete
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
>Sent: 01 December 2003 00:19
>To: Discussion of development issues
>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] stable net kicking ass
>
>
>Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
&
Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
I still think its a good idea to invest some toadtime into polishing it
before 0.5.3, but so far its kicking ass.
That is good news, and yes - I suspect there are a few things that need
to be tidied up (for example, didn't someone mention that acquisition of
new refs was b
> I still think its a good idea to invest some toadtime into polishing it
> before 0.5.3, but so far its kicking ass.
Yeah, just downloaded almost 300MB in half a day!
That's a new record for me with Freenet.
And we must consider that my stable node is completely new, I wiped
out everything I h
12 matches
Mail list logo
