On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote: > I think that we're not breaking protocol compatibility at all, and > that the "forced upgrades" are just ways for us to find out if our > latest changes to the node actually help the network, instead of a > myriad of ineffective ways we could be testing the node without > subjecting it to the majority of nodes.
Well, I suspect that the fproxy warnings, mailing list messages, and website announcements are the main incentive for people to upgrade, the forced upgrade stuff probably just makes people think that Freenet is broken and give up. I think it has been over-used in the past. > I'd be happy having a 6-12 month window of past nodes working, and > making it a habit to only up the last good build no more than once > every other month (maybe every third would be a good pace), so that > people eventually upgrade, and not huge upgrade requirements, but just > those that are 9-12 months old. I don't think that the last good build should be increased unless it is absolutely nescessary (for example, a faulty build which is really screwing up the network). I think is is a terrible way to encourage people to upgrade, since most will have no idea why their node has stopped working, and those that can't upgrade for whatever reason will be stuck. The best way to get people to upgrade is the FProxy upgrade warnings, and now note that FCP Clients can now also find out when a new version of Freenet is available so that they can notify non-fproxy users of upgrades too. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020820/d5a9d388/attachment.pgp>
