Matthew Toseland writes: > > Yup. Build 500 had a combinatorial explosion of announcements (within > the node). Build 501 largely fixed this. Build 502 fixed another nasty. > Build 503 will be out later today, and will fix the remaining behaviour.
... I'm going to agree with Ian on this one: build number is getting abused. Perhaps change a date on version.java and use the CVS version for 'minor tweaks' or just announce the time you made the change and what snapshot it's in. For .5, can we add a patchlevel to the protocol version that represents higher-level things like routing/caching decisions? At .5, it's likely that someone will implement a non-fred version of the daemon, so we don't want to be bumping our 'compatability' number for fixing memory leaks. The 'check for newer version' can check the node-name (FRED or C-freenet or whatever) for it's own name + build, and protocol rev for anyone's server. It's of minor importance, but something to think about for .5 --Dan _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
