We only do self-mandatory upgrades when there is a serious problem with keeping the old nodes on the network.
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:46:57AM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote: > There have been several recent mandatory upgrades that introduce > backoff-related bugfixes. > > I'm curious if it wouldn't be better for network health to have the > build n make build n-1 mandatory instead. The reason would be that it > seems likely to be bad for network health to be repeatedly severing > the network into two separate pieces and slowly migrating nodes across > the boundary -- the old set of locations and data stores assumed the > old set of connections was in place. > > I realize this leaves buggy builds on the network longer, causing > problems. However, if a sufficiently large fraction of the network > upgrades quickly (which it would seem they do, since self-mandatory > builds seem to work at least a bit), then that shouldn't persist more > than a little bit. > > Mostly it just seems odd to me that upgrading to the new build comes > at a penalty of having my node be on a very small network for the > first day or two after the upgrade, particularly when upgrades come > every day or two. > > Thanks, and good luck with the bug hunting :) > > Evan Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > -- 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/20060531/c0e5f2bd/attachment.pgp>
