* Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> [2006-06-29 19:58:27]: > Now that we have an auto-updater, it seems there is more reason than > normal not have self-mandatory builds.
Huh ? How comes you can't update using the auto-updater ? Why do you think we are releasing time-delayed self-mandatory builds ? > > What if, instead of refusing to talk to old builds, nodes simply only > allowed a very small number of requests from them, and routed a small > (or zero) number to them? It seems to me that would be sufficient for > most of the reasons that mandatory builds happen. > No. If it's self-mandatory, there is a reason why it is. > This would allow people with old builds (if they've been on vacation, > or more importantly if they got the build from a distro package or > some such) to connect at least enough to run the auto-updater. > > It also seems a node could prioritize (local) auto-updater requests > over other requests without hurting security, and that it would want > to if it was being throttled as penalty for being old, so that it > would get the update finished ASAP. The problem is that not-up-to-date nodes AREN'T using the auto-updater. And for nodes wich were off during the delay period, 'too bad' for them :p ... What we need is update-over mandatory support. https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=434 and for distro packages, maybe https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=519 NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060630/8ee4518e/attachment.pgp>
