> Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless > construction job. And thus I am not worried that it won't keep up. :-) > B> This won't stop your node from breaking when 0.4 is released. > > Will anything? Basing it on libfreenet would make it as painless as possible as it frees you from over-the-wire protocol issues. You'd still have to update behaviour issues. The thing which kept 0.3 applications from ever recovering was the over-the-wire protocol issues. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC David McNab
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Frank Joppe
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Oskar Sandberg
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Kalle A. Sandstr\"om
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Kalle A. Sandstr\"om
- RE: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Benjamin Coates
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Kalle A. Sandstr\"om
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Mr . Bad
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Adam Langley
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Ian Clarke
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Ian Clarke
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Peter Todd
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Michael Rogers
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Kalle A. Sandstr\"om
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Dave Hooper
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Kalle A. Sandstr\"om
- Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC Brandon
