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 >> a plugin to get more data, but digger3 promises to do it eventually >> and anyway I don't have time given the remaining funding and >> unlikeliness of getting more. And it's always been this way! >> >> Our whole business model forces me to just do things and not evaluate >> them! > > I think we had an idea for empirical stepwise advancement earlier. > > With an investment of developer time, we could separate the current > freenet code into three interfaced sections (link-layer, routing-layer, > user/client-interface-layer). > > If we then were to modify the outer layers to accept two routing-layers > (e.g. client requests round-robin between the two but thereafter stay in > that network) we could have "two networks in one" a stable-net (for the > nay-sayers, a disaster/fallback, and as a control for measurement), and > a development-net where experimentation could take place. > > Drawing the interface lines on theory (rather than present code-state) > would be critical [e.g. load-balancing should be in the middle layer, > imo]. The goal being, reliable communication with > near-guaranteed/methodical improvement.
Yes, very much this, please. I've been trying to move toward such separation with a well-defined plugin interface being the first step, but having funding for a full or part-time developer would help things along immensely.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
