On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:06:48AM -0700, Reskill wrote: > I just couldn't reserve comment any longer: > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:32:03 -0700 Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Pete wrote: > >> Erm toad didn't you like say to Reskill that you wouldn't be able > >to > >> test freenet without letting it run in the wild? How is having > >a > >> separate test network that isn't backwardly compatible with the > >current > >> network then forcing a network wide upgrade any different to reverting > >> stable to build 692, with it's own protocol, to keep it from talking > >to > >> the unstable branch and giving USERS, those people who support > >the > >> network with payments, a useable network? > >> > >> Just wondering.... > > > >By many reports even the stable branch is working. Today we had > >a new > >user - within minutes of startup, on 5028, he had two front page > >images... > > Oh toad :P 10/10, I never knew you were an MP? Question excellently avoided > :P
LOL. It's a question: IS STABLE WORKING? The answer is absolutely vital to deciding what to do in the current crisis. Another important question is, is unstable working? And is unstable working better than stable is? If so, we should merge it to stable as long as there are no remaining gross bugs. As regards the original question: of course we write freenet for the users. This means both current users and potential users. And IF stable IS working, then there is absolutely no reason to backtrack it to some ancient build. And even if it is not working well, if we can get unstable working reasonably well in a matter of days (some problems with inserts are the latest major problem but many issues have been fixed already), then we can avoid the probably rather stressful to the network and userbase step of forking the network. > > I do however absolutely agree with your initial suggestion that it is > time to move unstable to a "reset" network. I'm sure we'll get enough > machines on there for you to do some proper testing, so hopefully when > stable is upgraded to this network all will appear as if seen through > rose tinted spectacles. If multiplexing creates the ideal scenario for > this reset, then so be it. I'm sure multiplexing will be just lovely. We shall see. I haven't finished debugging unstable yet. > > I still firmly believe that without network segregation and a proper > transparent testing procedure, we open ourselves up to the same network > "crash" we have experienced lately. It is, however, painfully obvious > that no development compromises will be made at this time, which I respect. My opinions on the reasons for the "crash" are well known and I will not repeat them here unless necessary. > > <resists urge to make comments about the projects leadership> - they > will no doubt make my flog. > > Pete: "Sorry toad, Only trying to keep Reskill from screaming about it > when he reads this thread ;)" - It has taken some holding back I admit, > but thanks for asking the question above Pete, even if it didn't get > answered :P > > Happy coding, > --Reskill -- 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
