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. -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110826/7e445d39/attachment.html>
