On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > Ok, what we need: > > * A list of nodes with have granted FProxy access to > dodo.freenetproject.org (212.13.198.248) that will reliably be running > the prod build > > * A version of the Windows installer that supports both Prod and Devl > modes which the user can choose between on installation (ideally with > a nice check box on the installation wizard, not one of those ugly > modal dialog boxes which we need to get rid of). This should then > download either: > http://freenetproject.org/deploy/freenet-prod-latest.jar > or: > http://freenetproject.org/deploy/freenet-devl-latest.jar > > And: > http://freenetproject.org/deploy/seednodes-prod.txt > or: > http://freenetproject.org/deploy/seednodes-devl.txt > > * The update.sh script should be adjusted accordingly too > > * The stable branch should be reverted to build 692
Build 692 is from the UNSTABLE branch. And it probably does not include a certain anon filter bugfix. Has anyone actually tried running a 50 node network of 5028's only? I suspect it would work reasonably well! > > * The Freenet website should be updated to the above structure > (initially using symlinks) > > Eventually I would like the fredisdead movement to turn into a coherent > group that focuses on usability while the core developers focus on > pushing ahead with the bleeding edge stuff. If there is a person or > people that are willing to take responsibility for this, let me know who > you are and I will grant you the permissions you will need on SF and dodo. The core developers are focussing on debugging. > > Lastly, tomorrow I leave the US for Ireland, meaning that I will be > offline for at least 24 hours and will be on a modem until about the > 20th - so please lets try to get the ball rolling today while I still > have broadband. Oh wonderful. > > Ian. > > Reskill wrote: > >I guess this is mainly directed at Ian. The Production Network appears > >to be running well on 692 and I would like to see freenetproject.org > >endorse this move and make it more "official" - hosting the proper software > >etc for those who want to use it. The update script would, I guess, also > >need to be modified so that when there is a forced upgrade, people get > >the right thing (and don't end up on the Development Network). > > > >It probably wouldn't hurt if the Development Network moved onto a fresh > >network also - you never know, more recent builds/technologies may work > >far better without the oversized bundle of outdated legacy software > >clogging > >up the network like black holes. Anyway, thats for the developers to > >decide. > > > >The news article on the front page of freenetproject.org is also a little > >misleading - no, there has not been a fork, but the network is dividing > >into a usable and stable single-build network, and a development network. > > > >Basically, the nice simple fast 692 build running on the Production Network > >will give a much better impression to new users. It allows quick insertion > >and quick retrieval. In turn, I would imagine this will increase support > >for the project. Then, if people want to play with the Development Network, > > they can do so - knowing that the Production Network will always be > >there for them. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
