Re: [freenet-dev] Fundamental problems in Freenet was Re: Links for Bob Ham

On 05/11/15 22:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 05/11/15 22:21, Bob Ham wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 21:19 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>> On 04/11/15 22:57, Bob Ham wrote: >>>> That's all helpful, thanks. However, I'm still not entirely sure which >>&g

Re: [freenet-dev] Fundamental problems in Freenet was Re: Links for Bob Ham

On 05/11/15 22:41, Bob Ham wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 22:33 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 05/11/15 22:21, Bob Ham wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 21:19 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> On 04/11/15 22:57, Bob Ham wrote: >>>>> Th

Re: [freenet-dev] Fundamental problems in Freenet was Re: Links for Bob Ham

On 05/11/15 22:21, Bob Ham wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 21:19 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 04/11/15 22:57, Bob Ham wrote: >>> That's all helpful, thanks. However, I'm still not entirely sure which >>> are the "fundamental" problems Toad spoke of

[freenet-dev] Fundamental problems in Freenet was Re: Links for Bob Ham

On 04/11/15 22:57, Bob Ham wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 07:49 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/04/2015 07:41 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> ... >>> Did you see https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Research_challenges or the >>> section titled "Do we understand Freenet?" on toad's blog? > No I

Re: [freenet-dev] Multiple implementations considered harmful was Re: Project Status

On 03/11/15 21:07, Bob Ham wrote: > My argument is that what is most useful to the world is an ecosystem of > implementations of a well documented, robust protocol for > censorship-resistant publishing. That is not realistic for the time being IMHO. Primarily because users of Freenet have to run a

Re: [freenet-dev] A bold idea for discussion: "Freenet 2"

On 03/11/15 18:00, Ian wrote: > For those that appear to be craving a "bold new strategy", one thing I've > proposed in the past would be to put the main Freenet codebase in > "maintenance mode", and throw our resources behind http://tahrirproject.org/ > (possibly renaming it "Freenet 2" since

[freenet-dev] Multiple implementations considered harmful was Re: Project Status

On 02/11/15 13:02, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:28 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > one > may observe that we have not

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 02/11/15 21:57, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 08:15 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > >> I feel like you're belitting what work we do because we have not >> performed it in accordance with an overarching strategy. > I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I'm simply pointing out that there is

Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links

On 31/10/15 21:18, Bert Massop wrote: > On 31-10-15 17:27, Bob Ham wrote: >> On Sat, 2015-10-14 at 20:22 +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> I think it's time for us all to take a step back and have a serious >>> conversation about where we are, and where we are going. >> I (as pintu) asked this question

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 29/10/15 08:38, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2015, 08:40:50 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide: >>> I'm not sure I understand why you'd get a vote on what will happen. >> The part I’m talking about is the not-changing if not needed. > Also I don’t see why I have to get a

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 25/10/15 10:24, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015, 17:30:37 schrieb dean: >> Yes that would a good boost. How do difficult is it to upload software >> that changes as frequently as freenet? Wont users get stuck using old >> versions? > This should be less of an issue

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 25/10/15 10:22, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag, 24. Oktober 2015, 16:06:42 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> We could even get rid of db4o if we can bundle it with the >> plugins that need it. > Let’s not do anything which could break plugins. Why not? Do any unofficia

Re: [freenet-dev] Metrics

On 25/10/15 18:56, salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > Freenet users have the reasonable expectation they won't be tracked by > a corporate third party when visiting a privacy promoting website. Right. Whether they are right or not, we should avoid doing anything that will aggravate

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 25/10/15 13:05, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 10/25/2015 09:02 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 25/10/15 10:22, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> Am Samstag, 24. Oktober 2015, 16:06:42 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>>> We could even get rid of db4o if we can bundle it w

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Hackathon?

On 23/10/15 22:42, xor wrote: > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:39:28 PM Steve Dougherty wrote: >> Does December 12th - 13th work for people? > Yes. > > I suppose I should try to attend as advisor, not by writing code myself, so I > have enough time to help people with issues they encounter?

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 24/10/15 05:11, dean wrote: > On 10/24/15 00:13, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 23/10/15 07:54, dean wrote: >>> On 10/23/15 13:50, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>>> * I don't think v29 is preferable to contrib master. master is split >>>> into multiple ja

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 24/10/15 09:28, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015, 16:47:47 schrieb Steve Dougherty: >> I'm not proposing that we bundle Tor, that this replace the existing UDP >> transport, nor that it become a typical mode of operation. I'm pointing out >> a possible use of a TCP

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 23/10/15 22:59, dean wrote: > On 10/23/15 23:11, Steve Dougherty wrote: > [...] >> A repo would be great! Probably >> https://downloads.freenetproject.org/debian/, though. Also - Debian >> packages can be used to update over Freenet too. Mempo's already doing >> it, though the experience would

Re: [freenet-dev] Routing question

On 19/10/15 15:07, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 14:11 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> I still think you should separate optimising routing (trees of all >> locations etc, long's instead of doubles) from changing behaviour >> (ignoring FOAF peers if the

Re: [freenet-dev] Routing question

On 19/10/15 18:33, Bert Massop wrote: > On 18-10-15 21:08, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 18/10/15 14:33, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 22:26 +0200, Bert Massop wrote: >>>> On 10-10-15 21:01, nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote: >>>>

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package

On 23/10/15 07:54, dean wrote: > On 10/23/15 13:50, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> * I don't think v29 is preferable to contrib master. master is split >> into multiple jars, which is better and I'm hoping we can move to it. > My thoughts on this were: The debian package should use exactly the same

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Hackathon?

On 23/10/15 04:39, Steve Dougherty wrote: > Does December 12th - 13th work for people? Works for me. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 23/10/15 04:16, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 10/16/2015 11:13 AM, Ian wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:38 PM, >> wrote: > ... >>> I'm questioning if the overhead of designing and maintaining yet another >>> anonymity protocol makes sense given Freenet's

[freenet-dev] Website

On 21/10/15 11:41, Steve Dougherty wrote: > The site is now live. Woot! The donation progress bar is unclear. It says "1/12 months", but is hard to read - too easy to mistake it for "12 months", especially with white on light blue. And maybe centre it. Just say how many months, we don't need the

Re: [freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 19/10/15 07:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 20:54:33 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> Multi-sourcing does not improve anonymity - it tends to reduce it. > It allows using higher latency without impacting the user experience. It also gives the attacker

Re: [freenet-dev] Routing question

On 19/10/15 10:37, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 20:08 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 18/10/15 14:33, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 22:26 +0200, Bert Massop wrote: >>>> On 10-10-15 21:01, nextg...@freenetproject.org wrot

[freenet-dev] Sybil Still Always Wins was Re: Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 18/10/15 00:47, salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-October/009684.html > > Tor bridges work for hundred of thousands of users from Iran and China > so they are doing something right. Sybil doesn't always win if you > raise costs.

Re: [freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 18/10/15 10:03, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015, 01:47:05 schrieb > salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com: >> Adding latency is a bad idea and actually less effective than you >> believe compared to other ways. >> >>

Re: [freenet-dev] Routing question

On 18/10/15 14:33, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 22:26 +0200, Bert Massop wrote: >> On 10-10-15 21:01, nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote: >>> Oi! >>> >>> Given https://github.com/freenet/fred/blob/next/src/freenet/node/Pe >>> erManager.java#L1049 >>> >>> We seem to get our peers

Re: [freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 17/10/15 22:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag, 17. Oktober 2015, 21:04:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>>> I do think we could provide better anonymity than Tor in the long run >>>> though. But we can't prevent blocking - *any* peer-to-peer network &g

Re: [freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 17/10/15 20:45, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > From: Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> > Date: 17.10.2015 18:41:23 > At: devl@freenetproject.org > Topic: [freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status >> I do think we could provide better anonymity than Tor in the long run

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet-Based Youtube (with working proof of concept)

On 17/10/15 09:13, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015, 17:29:45 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> It's not going to >> be as easy and fast as Youtube any time soon, > Add an m3u filter and merge the ogg filters, and we can stream over Freenet. > > Pr

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet as backing store for sites on the clearnet (in use today)

On 17/10/15 10:35, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Sat, 2015-10-17 at 10:24 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Am Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015, 17:29:45 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>> there's no way to do Javascript […] or server-side databases >> Chris Double (bluishcoder)

[freenet-dev] Tunnels was Re: Project Status

On 17/10/15 01:33, salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > Right now Freenet discovers other clients on opennet by way of seed > nodes. Hypothetically you can run the nodes as hidden services and > embed the addresses in Freenet clients. Clients generate their own > hidden address keys and

Re: [freenet-dev] FLIP, chatting over Freenet with 60s round-trip time

On 17/10/15 09:17, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015, 17:29:45 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> Even chat/forums are slow > Did you ever use FLIP? We get 60s round-trip time there. > > → http://freesocial.draketo.de/flip_en.html > > FLIP feels just l

[freenet-dev] Kickstarter may actually be possible?

On 16/10/15 19:57, charles wrote: >>> Try to get in crowdfunded anti surveillance projects >>> like CommunityCube: >>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/communitycubes/communitycube-lets-build-a-fair-internet/description >>> It will establish you further like abovementioned and will result in

Re: [freenet-dev] Dependency management was Re: Behind the times

On 15/10/15 21:29, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 15. Oktober 2015, 18:26:49 schrieb Florent Daigniere: >> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:38 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> Though maybe we could also get the same done with easier to follow >>> documentation (just hosting the jars

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 16/10/15 00:38, salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > Step back and take a deep breath. I'm not telling you to shutdown your > website and foundation and host your project on Tor' s site. > > I'm questioning if the overhead of designing and maintaining yet > another anonymity protocol

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 16/10/15 07:36, Florent Daigniere wrote: > I do not think that "our users" are genuinely interested in publishing > anything anymore. Back when the project started, there wasn't > Wikipedia, Blogger, facebook nor twitter... And those who are (the > copyright infringement brigade, ...) we're not

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 16/10/15 16:32, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > I noticed and got interested in Freenet in 2006 by this paper, here from the > year 2002 > - http://www.lawtechjournal.com/articles/2002/05_021229_roemer.php - and made > an > effort in actually using it in 2014 as a reaction on the surveillance

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 15/10/15 00:44, Steve Dougherty wrote: > I think another thing being staffed by volunteers has done is made the > project rather directionless. By their nature volunteers tend to work > on what they find interesting, and it doesn't build toward a focused > goal. Volunteers are great at

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on 1471 feature set?

On 12/10/15 00:33, Steve Dougherty wrote: > Florent expressed interest in getting the caching store tracker out, [0] > but we'd also planned for 1471 to transition to a new key as part of > 1472 requiring Java 7, and that's not implemented yet. Are people > interested in postponing the Java 7

Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status

On 15/10/15 00:53, Hunter Poe wrote: > Hi, there > > > > I have been a user of Freenet for several years now, and am at this point > still a pretty junior develop, but finally feel my capabilities have > advanced to the point where I would feel comfortable starting to do some > work with Freenet

Re: [freenet-dev] Dependency management was Re: Behind the times

> danger here is that we further complicate things for a developer trying to > get into the project. On 11/10/15 16:35, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 10/10/2015 04:14 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 06/10/15 15:10, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:39 AM, xor <x...

Re: [freenet-dev] Behind the times

On 06/10/15 10:39, xor wrote: > Well, the question is if the user's care about the difference: > Fact is that Freenet is insanely small compared to the regular Internet. > They'll thus likely to continue wanting anonymous access to the regular net > - and keep uninstalling Freenet if it can only

[freenet-dev] Dependency management was Re: Behind the times

On 06/10/15 15:10, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:39 AM, xor wrote: > 2) What can Maven do which Ant cannot do? Do we need those features? >>> Dependency management There is a lot of important context being missed in this discussion, in particular what

Re: [freenet-dev] Hi

On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 01:58:15AM -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: > In the light of the elliptic curve attacks [0] are you interested in > helping rekey the seed nodes? Does it require new code? > > - Steve > > [0] https://freenetproject.org/news.html#20150917-ecdsa-vulnerability I don't think

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet/Tunnels 2015-08 paper: On the Impossibility of Efficient Self-Stabilization in Virtual Overlays with Churn

On 27/09/15 20:17, xor wrote: > http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280623435_On_the_Impossibility_of_Efficient_Self-Stabilization_in_Virtual_Overlays_with_Churn >> Abstract >> —Virtual overlays generate topologies for greedy rout- >> ing, like rings or hypercubes, on connectivity restricted

Re: [freenet-dev] Behind the times

On 02/10/15 13:48, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 10/02/2015 08:29 AM, Victor Denisov wrote: How about a custom Maven repo with checked/approved dependencies only? Creating a Maven repo is trivial if a Web server is already running; and it can also be done in a GitHub repo - though

Re: [freenet-dev] Behind the times

On 29/09/15 22:04, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > Regarding point 2 best probably simply would be to ping gerard, because he > is working at a new Freenet website and is almost finished according to > this posting of him here, which he posted 5 months ago: >

Re: [freenet-dev] Behind the times

On 30/09/15 14:31, Ian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Matthew Toseland <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org >> wrote: >> >> Checking a signature or at least a checksum is basic due diligence for >> security-related software. It's not supported reliably by Maven, >

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on removing native acceleration? [cross-post FMS]

On 21/09/15 03:11, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 09/20/2015 01:14 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote: >> On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 15:25 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> Does anyone have benchmarks that demonstrate native acceleration >>> having >>> significant performance improvements? Keeping it around

Re: [freenet-dev] Multiple SourceForge issues

On 10/09/15 09:35, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2015, 10:12:19 schrieb xor: >> There was someone on IRC whose Freenet wasn't working because it was >> build01217. He got that because our SF account still labels that as latest. > That’s horrible. The user also checked

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet 0.7.5 1471-pre1

On 28/08/15 23:31, Steve Dougherty wrote: Freenet unstable testing prerelease 1471-pre1 is now available. WebOfTrust now has an updatable testing version built and maintained by xor. It currently offers build 17, which has performance improvements. To use it, unload WebOfTrust, then load

[freenet-dev] Who originally proposed Bloom filter sharing?

I'm hoping to do a university project next year including implementing Bloom filter sharing in Freenet. I recall talking to a theorist who said he'd been assuming we had it for years in simulations and it boosted success rates by about 10%. Who originally proposed this, and why do we expect it to

Re: [freenet-dev] An idea for load management

On 12/08/15 22:20, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Mittwoch, 12. August 2015, 19:45:11 schrieb Matthew Toseland: On 12/08/15 19:42, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Sonntag, 9. August 2015, 12:14:59 schrieb Matthew Toseland: - When load is high, we tend to kill requests which are close

[freenet-dev] An idea for load management

For bulk requests: - Queue incoming requests. - Implement strict round robin between peers. - If a request is not accepted in X period, *the request is killed*, not rerouted. - Within a peer's round-robin slot, always accept the request closest to this node's location, regardless of age.

Re: [freenet-dev] Probe overload responses

On 25/07/15 09:47, Florent Daigniere wrote: On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 20:19 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: 1468's release coincides with increased overload probe response - see attached. Any ideas on why this might be? Failed upgrades maybe? Network size estimates are dropping as well but that's

[freenet-dev] Anyone with cmd-fu?

https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6603 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] MAST appears to be a myth...

Having played with a ridiculously simplistic simulator, I conclude that Freenet's security sucks rather less than I had thought. That is, the moving around the circular keyspace in an arc metaphor is completely wrong, and it looks like there is very little information *easily* available about the

[freenet-dev] Please test snapshots for 1469 especially if have encrypted disks!

(Posting the version from FMS as it is clearer) On 12/07/15 00:17, toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI wrote: On 11/07/15 23:57, toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI wrote: On 11/07/15 19:09, operhiem1@C1aOr8GEQmP6u-gN3PxwufUSnW2ENrZhD8EmovXKH-s wrote:

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1468 released

On 11/07/15 19:07, Steve Dougherty wrote: The Freenet team is very happy to announce the stable release of Freenet 0.7.5 build 1468. *Important notes*: downgrading from build 1468 is not supported; if you want to go back to build 1467 without losing the upload and download queues, *before*

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 28/04/15 18:03, Matthew Toseland wrote: On 10/04/15 02:27, Steve Dougherty wrote: Google Summer of Code didn't work out for us, but maybe we can have a Freenet Summer of Toad? It's not certain yet, but Matthew might be interested in working 35-hour weeks over the summer for FPI. He says he

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 10/04/15 02:27, Steve Dougherty wrote: Google Summer of Code didn't work out for us, but maybe we can have a Freenet Summer of Toad? It's not certain yet, but Matthew might be interested in working 35-hour weeks over the summer for FPI. He says he wants at least $6k for 8 weeks but

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 11/04/15 09:57, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Samstag, 11. April 2015, 01:53:22 schrieb Matthew Toseland: The latter might be fixed by good javadocs on BaseManifestPutter and its inner classes. The site insert code is pretty arcane. I think it would be easier to find in general

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 11/04/15 09:52, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Samstag, 11. April 2015, 01:34:17 schrieb Matthew Toseland: Transport plugins are written by a GSoC student (Chetan), but need major refactoring and fixing of concurrency issues (plus implementing stream/TCP plugins) How much work would

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 10/04/15 14:29, Luke wrote: On 04/09/2015 09:27 PM, Steve Dougherty wrote: Google Summer of Code didn't work out for us, but maybe we can have a Freenet Summer of Toad? It's not certain yet, but Matthew might be interested in working 35-hour weeks over the summer for FPI. He says he wants

Re: [freenet-dev] [RFC] Freenet Summer of Toad

On 10/04/15 02:27, Steve Dougherty wrote: Google Summer of Code didn't work out for us, but maybe we can have a Freenet Summer of Toad? It's not certain yet, but Matthew might be interested in working 35-hour weeks over the summer for FPI. He says he wants at least $6k for 8 weeks but

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 01/04/15 21:56, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Dienstag, 31. März 2015, 22:29:24 schrieb Ian: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote: It’s work from paid contributors for which we need structures which reduce the cost of code-review compared to what

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 22/03/15 21:39, Ian Clarke wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: But regardless, nothing in the process I've outlined would inhibit correcting problems like this. Ideally they'd be corrected at the code review stage, but if they make it past

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 22/03/15 19:22, Ian Clarke wrote: I think you've misidentified the problem and therefore the solution. The problem is that diffs would ever be too big to understand on their own, therefore the solution is that the diff should never be too big to understand on it's own. A

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 22/03/15 19:07, Ian wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Matthew Toseland matt...@toselandcs.co.uk wrote: 0. Stupid stuff. E.g. committing jars to repositories. Committing jars to repositories is kind of careless, don't people have sensible .gitignore files? Can a .gitignore

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 22/03/15 22:21, Roland Haeder wrote: On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:40:41 + Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 22/03/15 19:22, Ian Clarke wrote: Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary to make big changes. One good example is the initial import of all files for a new project

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 21/03/15 17:45, Ian Clarke wrote: Talking to a few people, I think our current approach to code review is problematic. For example, I've been told that some people are arguing that commits are too granular, and need to be combined to make code review easier. This is a mistake, there is

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 21/03/15 18:58, Matthew Toseland wrote: On 21/03/15 17:45, Ian Clarke wrote: Talking to a few people, I think our current approach to code review is problematic. For example, I've been told that some people are arguing that commits are too granular, and need to be combined to make code

Re: [freenet-dev] Github and code review

On 21/03/15 20:49, Ian Clarke wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Matthew Toseland matt...@toselandcs.co.uk wrote: Most of the above boils down to review the diff, not the history. That is probably sensible. That's part of it, but also that a branch should be created for each bugfix

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet funding and this summer

On 16/11/14 16:36, Ian Clarke wrote: Hi Matthew, I agree that unless we get some kind of windfall in funding we should probably reserve current funds for Xor. Would working as a Google Summer of Code student provide you with sufficient income? Unfortunately Freenet was not accepted into GSoC

Re: [freenet-dev] Release of build 1468

On 17/02/15 14:36, Florent Daigniere wrote: We've just had a long chat with operhiem1 on IRC about release management: The outcome is that 1468 will ship soon but not with the fcp/event-based changes (5kloc of code, hundreds of commits). The release has been stalled for too long, for no

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet received the SUMA Award 2015 (press release draft)

[ SUMA award announcement ] Please let me know the new bank balance once the money has cleared, so I can update the script. Thanks. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org

Re: [freenet-dev] Autostart on Startup

On 18/12/14 02:39, Steve Dougherty wrote: On 12/17/2014 03:02 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Hi, I just had one of my new darknet contacts call me, saying “my Freenet site does not work anymore. It says the host localhost does not exist.” I was stupefied for a moment, until I realized

Re: [freenet-dev] Autostart on Startup

On 19/12/14 00:46, Matthew Toseland wrote: On 18/12/14 02:39, Steve Dougherty wrote: On 12/17/2014 03:02 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Hi, I just had one of my new darknet contacts call me, saying “my Freenet site does not work anymore. It says the host localhost does not exist.” I

Re: [freenet-dev] [Darknet-tools] invitation

On 13/12/14 23:45, xor wrote: On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:35:26 PM demos wrote: Hello folk, I am searching for a freenet developer who can imagine to hold a short lecture towards freenet in Dresden for a meeting of the project EDN, that has the goal of developing/implementing a

Re: [freenet-dev] TAILS inclusion by creating .deb package

On 12/12/14 23:00, xor wrote: FYI here's our relevant bugtracker entry, which contains some arguments for adding Freenet to TAILS: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6268 I thought we had a debian package but not a repository? Is it currently not maintained? There are good reasons

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet funding and this summer

On 07/12/14 15:10, Steve Dougherty wrote: On 11/18/2014 02:40 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Am Sonntag, 16. November 2014, 21:46:57 schrieb Matthew Toseland: On 16/11/14 20:55, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Instead of kickstarter we could simply go for indiegogo. They allow free software

[freenet-dev] Fwd: [Darknet-tools] invitation

Most people don't subscribe to darknet-tools. Forwarding... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Empiricism vs funding, and RecentlyFailed (from FMS)

On 07/12/14 15:12, Steve Dougherty wrote: On 08/26/2011 11:18 AM, Robert Hailey wrote: On 2011/08/25 (Aug), at 2:15 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: And we never, ever, ever, have enough data to evaluate a single build, even on the simplest metrics (see the push-pull tests). I could write

Re: [freenet-dev] Code reformatting date

On 19/11/14 02:49, Steve Dougherty wrote: Shall we set a date for reformatting the codebase to follow (at least cosmetically) Google's Java style guide, updating the Eclipse project, and adding an IntelliJ IDEA one? To do otherwise seems liable to leave the codebase with a mish-mash of coding

Re: [freenet-dev] Kickstarter

On 17/11/14 20:46, Michael Grube wrote: I know I've not comment or contributed in some time now, but I just have some comments on this. On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 16/11/14 17:50, Ian wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Matthew Toseland

Re: [freenet-dev] Kickstarter

On 17/11/14 21:38, Michael Grube wrote: I hate to put it this way, but let's be coldly rational here. Please do not take this as an offensive question: What can we offer that maidsafe cannot? Since it will be based on 'safecoins' I'm assuming it will cost money to use which is one advantage we

[freenet-dev] What next?

On 16/11/14 16:36, Ian Clarke wrote: We're in an interesting situation. The world finally appears to really care about the things that Freenet has been about from the very beginning a decade and a half ago (most of the publicity back then viewed Freenet through the prism of Napster and

[freenet-dev] Kickstarter

On 16/11/14 17:50, Ian wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 16/11/14 16:36, Ian Clarke wrote: We're in an interesting situation. The world finally appears to really care about the things that Freenet has been about from the very beginning

[freenet-dev] Shipping 0.8 was Re: What next?

On 16/11/14 17:30, Matthew Toseland wrote: On 16/11/14 16:36, Ian Clarke wrote: We're in an interesting situation. The world finally appears to really care about the things that Freenet has been about from the very beginning a decade and a half ago (most of the publicity back then viewed

Re: [freenet-dev] Build 1466-pre1 released

On 14/11/14 03:51, Steve Dougherty wrote: On Nov 5, 2014 7:04 AM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 05/11/14 04:37, Steve Dougherty wrote: ... I had hoped to release 1466 last weekend. That didn't happen both because we decided it should have more testing before release, and because

Re: [freenet-dev] Development Libraries

On 14/11/14 21:08, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote: Hey there, so, I was writing a unit test for Fred and I was wondering which version of JUnit 4 we are using. If we already have decided which JUnit version to use we should really document that somewhere in the source tree, e.g. in

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1466 released

On 10/11/14 18:43, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: Very cool! Thank you for taking up the releases! Agreed, looking forward to having my work out there! If there are problems I may be able to do some bug fixing over Christmas. Until then I can't do much more than answer the odd email query. Thanks!

Re: [freenet-dev] Build 1466-pre1 released

On 05/11/14 04:37, Steve Dougherty wrote: The prerelease tagged as testing-build-1466-pre1 is available via update.sh|cmd testing. Inserts are in progress. I just pulled the Fred translations from Transifex; if they are wrong or out of date they require updating. I had hoped to release 1466

Re: [freenet-dev] Coding Standard

On 02/11/14 23:30, Juiceman wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote: We've been here and tried that previously... several things came out: 1) tools to re-indent existing code have bugs https://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123258

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet CLI

On 17/10/14 20:17, John Arley Burns wrote: It appears the Freenet command line interface is no longer supported, and I can't find the sources anywhere. I did see a post from 2005 stating how to start a command line interface: java -cp freenet.jar:freenet-ext.jar freenet.client.cli.Main Any

Re: [freenet-dev] Your release manager is overwhelmed

On 25/09/14 02:25, Steve Dougherty wrote: Hi everyone, I have too many tasks to do to be able complete them in the way I've been approaching things thus far. The sheer magnitude of code I feel obligated to review on top of other improvements I'd like to write for 1466 makes this feel more

[freenet-dev] Purge-db4o-crypto final snapshot #28

On 19/09/14 14:39, Matthew Toseland wrote: The client layer rewrite aka purge-db4o is finished. That is, it is feature complete, and has had a reasonable amount of testing (but needs more). Major changes: - No longer uses db4o to store anything, but will migrate from old node.db4o*'s

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >