On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:25:13AM +0200, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > * 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 ?
Maybe the time delay is so short (24-48 hours) that most people won't be able to upgrade in time because their node is offline? > > > 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. Agreed. We might have to allow updating from nodes which we can't connect to, but this would be fairly complex. > > > 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 ... Well, most nodes aren't up 24x7. And the bigger freenet gets the fewer nodes will be. Actually that isn't true right now as nodes are installed as daemon on Windows, and most people don't know how to turn them off. The future is that we'll have a rabbit, which is always running, but which you can use to enable or disable the node in case you have to do e.g. quake. > > What we need is update-over mandatory support. > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=434 Yes, but how important is it? > > and for distro packages, maybe > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=519 Maybe. The whole invitation area is rather up in the air and unclear right now. > > NextGen$ -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- 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/20060630/4294b1be/attachment.pgp>
