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
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, 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
