On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 05:18:37PM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
> That's what I'm voting for, now, too.
>
> BUT, I'd like to see some of the newer stuff, like MSKs and date-based
> redirects go into 0.4, and really try to wind 0.3 down to just bug
> fixing and egregious problems like the ref blocking you fixed.
>
> If we have TWO branches adding new features, we are going to have a
> hell of a time reconciling them when the time comes.
I agree, but the thing with date-based-redirects is that people (who know
what they are doing) are much more likely to wait until these are
supported before inserting content into Freenet. If we look at
date-based-redirects in isolation, they are a simple modification, with
no potential for nasty side-effects. MSKs, once debugged, are similar.
There are two distinct types of modification in my mind. The first are
stuff like the date-based-redirects, a simple client-side change which
doesn't affect the node, and which will give people useful new
functionality. These I would class as "superficial" modifications.
The second are major architectural changes, such as Oskar's upcoming
revamping of the message handling code, or Scott and Oskar's public-key
secure communication scheme, not to mention stuff like searching and
updating (which won't make it into 0.4).
Freenet thrives on people being able to try out and implement new ideas
quickly and cleanly and without beurocracy (once they have survived the
rough-and-tumble of a few days discussion on this mailing list).
Reserving the stable branch for bugfixes would certainly be appropriate
in a mature project such as Gnome, KDE, or Linux, but it could suck the
life out of a "bleeding edge" project like Freenet. I just think we need
to be more pragmatic about what gets into stable and what goes in
development, and be a little less mature about it until we are ready.
Ian.
PGP signature
