I don't think scaring David away is quite that easy, or I probably would have managed already :-).
While I agree that documentation should be high priority (but then, so should many things), I don't think the situation is that bad. The general idea behind the network, and the sequence of messages, is documented pretty well in the workshop papers. What is not documented really is the semantics of FNP 1.4/1.5, but since we now have FCP as a way for Freenet applications/clients to interface, that only concerns node implementations, and honestly the last thing we need right now are a bunch of alternative implementations of the unfinished protocol. Once we deploy a stable version of the protocol I agree that it should be documented (the 1.3 protocol that has stood still for about a year is decently documented). We do need people to work on Fred as always, but if you can work on the core layers of a piece of software without RTFS, then you are a better man then I, protocol docs or no. If you are interested, I recommend you start by reading Theo's paper. If you are interested in specifics beyond what is covered there, just ask, and I will do my best to remember where in the sporadic docs the different issues are covered, and to fill in the gaps from my head. The cardinal sin in free software project is to complain about what is not there - if you want documentation, then by all means write documentations, I will happily answer any number of questions along the way. && Oskar (the real one) On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:46:34AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote: > Do what you guys think is best. But as I have watched this list, I see > a fair number of people requesting docs (I think I did once). I think > these type of responses are harming the development of freenet. > > If a few key people get really uninterested or very unavailible, this > project could collapse. At the same time, people often talk about > freenet as if it is the most important software project on the internet, > and all other P2P or data haven projects are clueless when compared to > freenet. > > How far do you think http would have gotten if everytime someone asked > about it, someone responded: read the source to Mosaic. > > I think the documentation of the node and control protocols should be > very high priority, or I think freenet is going to continue to have > trouble atracting interest from developers. > > Just my two cents. > Oscar (Boykin). > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:01:38AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:34:05PM +1300, David McNab wrote: > > > How up-to-date is the present FNP spec at (hey, I can't even find it on > > > the > > > freenet site)? > > > > Not very. > > > > > Is there a current 0.4 FNP spec? > > > > Not really. > > > > > If not, will one be written that doesn't require RTFS? > > > > Not likely :-). > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Devl mailing list > > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > -- > > > > Oskar Sandberg > > oskar at freenetproject.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -- > boykin at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~boykin ICQ: 5118680 > Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28 -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
