Haxe wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 17:07, Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> > I had considered augmenting hosts, ultras to include a vendor name
> > (if we have discovered the vendor); a blank would be "random".
> This sounds like a good idea. When I set an anti-monopoly requirement to
> avoid falli
On Saturday 10 March 2007 17:07, Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> I had considered augmenting hosts, ultras to include a vendor name
> (if we have discovered the vendor); a blank would be "random". This
> *might* allow less connections attempts to fulfill the monopoly
> requirements. It could also give
Andrew Benton wrote:
> If it means anything to you, I still have the logs from two previous
> crashes. r12941 died with
> Assertion failure (oob.c:171) "!g_hash_table_lookup(results_by_muid,
> r->muid)"
I suspect this means the MUID was already removed (maybe expired) from
the routing table bu
