Roger Dingledine transcribed 1.0K bytes:
> Isis: I'd like to highlight this change for you, since it means
> that the bridge authority's networkstatus files are now going to
> have HSDir flags on the bridge status lines.
>
> I don't know if this is going to be a problem for any of your parsing
> c
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:18:07PM -0700, David Fifield wrote:
> I made some graphs that show the count and total bandwidth of all
> bridges, broken down by transport.
>
> https://people.torproject.org/~dcf/graphs/pt-bandwidth-2015-07-11/pt-bandwidth.png
>
> https://people.torproject.
On 07/20/2015 05:10 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> This is now a thing. https://spec.torproject.org/.
>
*** Thank you all! That was fast.
==
hk
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>> That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same as
>> it was before and make them be selected in a bandwidth-weight way. There is
>> no cost to this. You need IPs to be online, and so whatever number was used
>> in the past will yield the same availability now. And ban
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 4:03 PM, John Brooks wrote:
>
> A. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the “cost"
>>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>>> i
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Sounds great to me.
> https://spec.torproject.org/tor-spec
> https://spec.torproject.org/rend-spec
> https://spec.torproject.org/and address-spec
This is now a thing. https://spec.torproject.org/.
--
| .''`. ** Debia
A. Johnson wrote:
>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the “cost"
>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>> improvement?
>
> That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Int
Nicholas Hopper wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:48 PM, John Brooks
> wrote:
>> Comments are encouraged, especially if there are downsides or side
>> effects
>> that we haven’t written about yet, or that you have a different opinion
>> on.
>> The intent is that we can decide to do this before
Hi Aaron,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:54 PM, A. Johnson
wrote:
>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the "cost"
>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>> improvement?
>
> Tha
On 07/19/2015 01:17 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2015, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
>> Hi hellekin,
>>
>> On 07/18/2015 12:22 PM, hellekin wrote:
>>> Dear Tor developers,
>>>
>>> would it be possible to add https://torproject.org/spec page,
>>
>> We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/do
20.07.2015 16:17, Tom Ritter wrote:
I've set up and run BOINC tasks before. Unless something has fairly
significantly changed, BOINC is really designed for discrete tasks.
BOINC is used for discrete problems in many projects, but it has no
limitations to run long tasks. It can be run as a dae
W dniu 20.07.2015 o 14:45, l.m pisze:
> Hi,
>
> Is it normal for a core developer to want to commit broken code to
> master? I mean if the code is known to be completely broken. Wouldn't
> it be better to fix the code that is broken before commit. I mean
> master is a basis for working code isn't
On 19 July 2015 at 20:11, Serg wrote:
> The basic idea is that users running preconfigured secure server. BOINC
> downloads its as virtual machine image.
> Virtual machine gives secure sandbox to run relay.
I've set up and run BOINC tasks before. Unless something has fairly
significantly changed
Hi,
Is it normal for a core developer to want to commit broken code to
master? I mean if the code is known to be completely broken. Wouldn't
it be better to fix the code that is broken before commit. I mean
master is a basis for working code isn't it?
--leeroy
14 matches
Mail list logo
