On October 07, 2003 02:52 pm, Toad wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:47:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > [cut] > > > * 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). > > > [cut] > > > > As jrand0m suggested: > > "Since only developers will use the dev network, the installers should > > point at the prod network files with developers downloading the jar > > directly." So no installer change might be needed. > > Okay, this raises directly my main objection to the whole scheme. > > If only developers use the developer network, the developer network will > be so small that there will be no need for routing, and it will not be a > useful simulation. > > The basic problem we have been having is that the stable branch does not > work. If the stable branch worked, I would be able to commit disruptive > changes to the unstable branch without exploding the list. As it is, I > should have tested the changes on a local test network before committing > them (not like anyone else here does). The solution is to debug the > unstable branch, and get it good enough to merge. If people want to set > up an independant network that uses prehistoric builds, that's fine, but > if everyone uses them, I don't see how we can possibly move forward, for > the reasons I just outlined.
In this I agree with toad. It is going to be a very hard slog to get new code tested and debugged in a developer only network... Old builds were replaced because they were buggy. Going back is not going to fix those bugs. Instead we will have people complaining that freenet eats to much cpu and has other (long fixed) bugs. What we have not is not working well. IMHO we need to put efforts into fixing this. This means freenet will have problems for the next couple of days (or maybe weeks, but I hope not). I can live with it. Hopfully we will be able use more small test nets to verify basic functionality before realeasing into the wild. This implies we need some sort of testing script that can be executed automaticly on a test network. I think testing of this type would lead to a much more stable network. Before you say but thats a developer network - its not. I would start from a standard set of datastores and do a common set of operation on the nodes measuring results. For instance: do inserts work? are they faster/slower than the last test (what is the trend)? do retrieves of known data work? what is the performance trends? is FEC working? and a bugs are found we add tests to try and catch them before we (re)release code with problems. This would imply that new code would get tested before being placed in a snapshot. Comments? Ed _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
