Re: releasing next

On Friday, March 16, 2018 08:32:42 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Did I miss something? Validate the sha256sum of the deterministic build on Travis CI against your build before you upload it to the network. E.g. on the Travis job https://travis-ci.org/freenet/fred/jobs/363595206 search for

Re: releasing next

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:01:43 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > Playing the bullied special snowflake on the mailing list won't earn you any > favour. Perhaps you should print out the above statement of yours next to this statement of yours in a really large font size and see if you can spot

Re: releasing next

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 05:24:26 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > I would focus on delivering a fix to the crypto test failure along > with the PR to re-enable the tests so it's easier for him to swallow that > pill along with something sweet. Someone told me that I wasn't being clear

Re: releasing next

I don't think the two of us should be discussing this any further, we can't manage to agree so we should wait for a third opinion to resolve the conflict. This should also become our standard conflict resolution behavior in such issues. We waste too much time on arguing, and you're pushing your

Re: releasing next

On Friday, March 16, 2018 08:32:42 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > From my side, it’s finally time to create a release from next. The steps > I see are: > > - ship jna.jar as new dependency and add it to wrapper.conf > - ship freenet.jar as built from gradle > > Did I miss something?

Re: Freenet 0.7.5 build 1480 is now available.

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 10:02:15 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1480 is now available. [overview] > > - Ship new Windows Installer and Tray Now that it has been deployed to the website here's a glitch I found in it: https://freenetproject.org/pages/download.html

Re: Freenet 0.7.5 build 1480 is now available.

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 10:02:15 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > I fear that the new installer and tray might not have been shipped > successfully. If that is the case, please say so as fast as possible. Please clarify what you mean by that. Thanks for the release! signature.asc

Re: a test release for 1480

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 06:09:48 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > However I do plan to get a Windows VM for testing myself whether a > release works, once I get the time for that. Microsoft provides Windows VMs for free. They can conveniently be imported into VirtualBox which is open

Re: Fwd: DuckDuckGo privacy donations plan for 2018

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 10:05:21 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > For our list of successes since last year (alphabetically): - Thanks to Florent's contributions Travis CI now compiles deterministic builds using Gradle and automatically uploads them to GitHub. This currently is

Re: Test release for 1479

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 02:16:12 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > - plugins: WebOfTrust build0019 I spent hours on writing the changelog for that, it would be nice if you could link it in the final release: https://github.com/freenet/plugin-WebOfTrust/releases/tag/build0019 Beyond that:

Re: Freenet on Embedded Systems

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 05:22:28 AM Steve Dougherty wrote: > To run Freenet it'd need robust storage and a fair amount of RAM; when I ran > a Freenet node on a Raspberry Pi 2 (1 GiB RAM; MicroSD card rootfs and USB > ports) with Freenet installed to a USB hard drive, the USB drive kept >

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On Tuesday, May 09, 2017 09:12:21 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Monday, May 08, 2017 04:57:10 PM Ian wrote: > > There is also a trust issue, since we would probably need to give them > > access to source repos and other things - and it would be irresponsible to > > do that with someone we

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On Monday, May 08, 2017 08:29:45 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > Having said that, review capacity has been a problem in the past. My > purge-db4o work was delayed for an entire year, for example. How can we > minimise this? Just because our existing core contributors with review privileges aren't

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

If the USA would consider paying anonymous people money laundering then I'd agree that we shouldn't risk this. Nevertheless you raised an interesting issue which will also be relevant to non-anonymous employees, I'd like to say something about it: On Monday, May 08, 2017 04:57:10 PM Ian wrote:

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On Saturday, May 06, 2017 05:53:31 AM Steve Dougherty wrote: > To my understanding, at least currently xor does not want FPI to pay him for > his work. Yes, I'm only temporarily not available for hire as I've decided to instead work for free for some months, see [1]. Once this is fini

Re: [freenet-dev] Email infrastructure

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 01:30:55 PM Florent Daigniere wrote: > the unsubscription part (hopefully) dealt with by your MUA through the List > Unsubscribe header I've thought some more about this and a problem may be that many people nowadays only use minimalistic web mailers such as GMail.

Re: [freenet-dev] Email infrastructure

This looks good to me! Thanks for your work on getting things done! One question: > Please do test the new infrastructure (connecting to the new MX records) > and let me know if something doesn't feel right. Can you tell us how to do this? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:06:59 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 19:04 +0100, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 09:03:07 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > > > If you want to be useful, compile a list of *all* the requirements; > > > that's what

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 09:03:07 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > > Mailing lists and mail must keep working. > > If you want to be useful, compile a list of *all* the requirements; > that's what we need. - SSL for the website + downloads. - SSL must be compatible with the SSL stuff fred uses

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 09:54:27 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > Interesting, I used mutt for a while back in 1998 or 1999, them were the > days. Google Inbox these days (which does have some annoying qualities, > doesn't seem to do so well with formatting quoted replies). Btw, I would REALLY

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 07:02:35 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > Ok, I'm not making a specific point about any particular decision, I just > don't want us be paralyzed by needing to accommodate every obscure edge-case > in anything we do. :) I also don't want us to be paralyzed by edge cases - which

Re: [freenet-dev] DDG Donation Roadblocks

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 10:27:00 PM Freenet wrote: > x...@freenetproject.org: > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 08:23:00 PM Freenet wrote: > >> What is stopping the funding from DuckDuckGo (received over a year ago) > >> from being disbursed? > > > > Finding someone qualified to hire. > >

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 06:39:00 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 9:06 AM, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > Our typical developer is using a highly sophisticated terminal mail client > > which has received decades of development. > > Really? Have you conducted a survey? > I

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:27:11 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > x...@freenetproject.org writes: > > That is unfortunately something our privacy-focused users will certainly > > not accept :| > > We could also move more of our discussions to FMS. It’s code has > nowadays been checked by

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 07:50:05 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > While I'm more familiar with Slack, https://gitter.im/ is an alternative we > should consider that's used by a few open source projects. > Slack may have more of a barrier to entry for users, for example the Kotlin > open source

Re: [freenet-dev] DDG Donation Roadblocks

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 08:23:00 PM Freenet wrote: > What is stopping the funding from DuckDuckGo (received over a year ago) > from being disbursed? Finding someone qualified to hire. While it is indeed frustrating to see no progress here, I would please remind you that all of us are

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 11:16:07 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > [snip.] > > > > I'd really like us to use AWS for as much as possible re: > > > hosting. It has a lot of benefits, one of which is powerful multi-user > > > support. > > > > Well I really don't care where we host as long as

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 06:59:17 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 11:19 AM, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > What about a stupid, plain old htaccess file? > > Don't know if that will work with our current plan to host on AWS, but > hopefully there is some equivalent way to

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:11:04 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I don't want to break links, but I also don't want that to become a blocker > for updating to the new website. > Hopefully there can be some way we can re-map URLs and then those that care > about breaking links can migrate the

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 09:36:59 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Tue, 2017-02-21 at 14:56 +0100, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > I've read the IRC discussion, and I don't see any reason why our > > server should > > go down except the fact that it looks like Florent isn't in the mood

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 08:15:36 PM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 07:00:48 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > > It's ok, the project can pay for it if everyone is in agreement, and if > > someone is willing to handle the migration. > > Thanks! :) > > Steve and I will

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 07:00:48 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > It's ok, the project can pay for it if everyone is in agreement, and if > someone is willing to handle the migration. Thanks! :) Steve and I will handle it. I'll contact you about setting up an account / payment at the company once

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 01:24:50 PM Steve Dougherty wrote: > We're at the point where I would repeat myself. For reasons already stated, > I'd like to continue using Mantis. I am willing to pay the hosting costs. > There are more than directly financial costs in migrating to a new >

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:05:57 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > $23/month is expensive for what this is (considering that Github is free for > open source projects and does a lot more) :-/ If two boxes of beer a month is the only problem I'm almost willing to suck it up and just pay for it myself.

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:02:25 PM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > What company can we use for Mantis hosting? > > I will allocate a day for googling all of them ASAP, I'll try to do it > within a week. Actually, the decision which company to ask first can be solved pretty naturally -

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 04:40:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > Your ability to take something that could be said in 3 sentences and turn it > into a multi-page melodramatic essay never ceases to amaze me. Sorry, but it's impossible to break down the complexity of our problems into the length of

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 02:43:26 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I'm also curious as to the value of much of the data in Mantis, I mean, are > most of the issues in there still relevant? Are they ever likely to be > fixed or will they just gather dust indefinitely? I've moved this quote to the top

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 02:01:02 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > If necessary we can continue to pay for our own server, however I think it > would be better for everyone if we could migrate over to solutions that > don't require that we manage our own servers, such as Github Issues for >

Re: [freenet-dev] preserving the links to the wiki

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 08:54:20 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > Florent just warned again, that the clock on osprey (all our > non-standard hosting) is ticking. If we don’t act, this means that all > links to the wiki stop working. I've read the IRC discussion, and I don't see

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Freeenet: Help to create testbed to setup private freenet network

CCing to the development mailing list as scientific work deserves to be there. Perhaps sign up for that list as well to ensure you get all mails, and afterwards check the web archive for any you might have missed. On Saturday, January 07, 2017 10:07:44 AM Srikanta Pradhan wrote: > Hello Freenet,

Re: [freenet-dev] poll: start writing offers

On Monday, January 30, 2017 09:10:20 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > I did not miss that. Going by the poll you should get paid for that > work. I very very much appreciate the kindness of you saying that but I don't want that :) I'd prefer to do it for free as a measure of reconciliation

Re: [freenet-dev] poll: start writing offers

On Monday, January 30, 2017 09:08:51 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Also, for future discussions, please explicitly mention it when you're > > using the results from your custom evaluation algorithm, > > I said something along the lines of "with any evaluation method". The > email I wrote

Re: [freenet-dev] poll: start writing offers

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 04:57:58 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > PS: Finishing the first iteration of the WoT would normally be among > these two (with estimated 2.8 to 4.1 weeks ~ 2800$ to 4100$), but xor > pulled back his votes on that, so I won’t name it h

Re: [freenet-dev] poll: start writing offers

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 04:57:58 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > PS: Finishing the first iteration of the WoT would normally be among > these two (with estimated 2.8 to 4.1 weeks ~ 2800$ to 4100$), but xor > pulled back his votes on that, so I won’t name it h

Re: [freenet-dev] portable WoT IDs recoverable with a random password, implemented in pyFreenet

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 12:31:47 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished the basic implementation of a longterm plan I had: > portable WoT IDs, recoverable with a random password. Thanks for doing this! :) I don't have the time to read the whole thread right now, nor am

Re: [freenet-dev] Poll results available; Temporary quit as potential employee

Thanks for your kind words :) I don't have time to answer to all of this today, so I will just reply to the most important stuff. On Friday, December 09, 2016 09:01:16 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Why did you vote *0* on finishing the first iteration of the most > critical speed fixes??

[freenet-dev] Poll results available; Temporary quit as potential employee

ome reason? Greetings, xor signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 06:49:04 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > It’s been over a week now, could you please post the data with or > without the evaluation? I offered something like that at both the beginning and the end of my reply to Ian the last week and got no "Yes, do it" from him.

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:18:36 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 27/11/16 21:08, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > > That's OK, here's what happened: > > While most participants of the poll from IRC have been known in the > > community for years, 70% of the anonymous FMS participants created

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:29:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > x...@freenetproject.org writes: > > There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about > > stage 3, namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because they look > > like a sybil attack. > > I don’t like

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 06:48:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 12:30 PM, x...@freenetproject.org > > First of all, I *am* completely willing to do these difficult decisions. > > > > Just not as a volunteer-looking-to-be-hired, the job decision has to > > happen first. > > So

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 05:39:09 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 11:18 AM, x...@freenetproject.org > wrote: > > Your initial goal with the poll was to prevent embezzlement of the funds. > > No, it was to choose priorities in a fair democratized way, as opposed to a > small number

[freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

s a good idea here as it helps reaching a decision finally. Greetings, xor [1] WoT builds 13 to 18, fred plugin-fcp-rewrite. [2] https://freenet.uservoice.com Number of participants assumed to be the lower boundary of votes for the winner: 716 Number of participants in our curr

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

On Saturday, November 05, 2016 10:09:33 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > What’s the state of stage 4 now? Stage 4 is ready thanks to Ian's reply to my questions. I am now still waiting for a reply from Ian on my questions about stage 3. Once I have that reply, I can combine the both and

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:37:53 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > -> Please lets not make this subject of the result discussion yet, it's > > incomplete and potentially includes bogus data. > > That is true, and I already wrote that that’s a possibility. > > However that does not

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:26:50 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > x...@freenetproject.org writes: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:43:26 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > >> Don’t bother too much. I have all I found in csvs which are much easier > >> to work with. > >> > >> I

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 03:44:01 PM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > [...] potential malicious manipulation attempts in the poll > results I gathered [...] PSA about Arne's data: - The said potentially malicious votes are included in Arne's data. - Some results are truncated to 0 bytes -

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:43:26 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Don’t bother too much. I have all I found in csvs which are much easier > to work with. > > I uploaded a tarball with the votes and cost-estimates along with an > evaluation tool: Arne, it is not fun for me to volunteer

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 04:45:20 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Still, I am waiting for one signature of a core developer to be validated > and considering this event, I will not publish the results until I have a > validation. I could validate the signature now, this was merely a

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 04:45:20 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > As consequences, I would request the following: > [...] (And the obvious of course: - Always validate keys by the full fingerprint, not just from the short 8 character hashcode. - Validate fingerprints using a secure

[freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

http://www.draketo.de/english/gnupg-attack This happened at an interesting point in time: The financial allocation poll was finished last Sunday and I wanted to publish the results - but the GPG signatures of at least 4 participants were invalid and I luckily was paranoid enough to postpone the

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Monday, September 19, 2016 10:11:16 PM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:09:18 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Attached is my vote. > > I'm currently accumulating the results of the poll which is being blocked by > my mail client saying the

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Monday, August 08, 2016 01:17:26 PM Stephen Oliver wrote: > Attached are my votes as CSV > > Thanks :) I'm currently accumulating the results of the poll which is being blocked by my mail client saying the GPG-signature of your mail is bad. This happens rather frequently due to bugs at

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:09:18 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is my vote. I'm currently accumulating the results of the poll which is being blocked by my mail client saying the GPG-signature of your mail is bad. This happens rather frequently due to bugs at

Re: [freenet-dev] Web of Trust version 0.4.5 finished, changelog & how to install inside

There are ~ 28 testers and zero bug reports so far in the 5 weeks for which this has been out. Thus I hereby raise this from "testing" to "stable". Steve, please include it in the next Freenet release. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [freenet-dev] Winning design selected

On Friday, September 09, 2016 12:50:51 PM DC* wrote: > Effectively Github does *not* support Content-negotiation. If we don't want > to adopt another strategy to serve pages we'll need to stay away from > Github Pages. > Otherwise we'll need to add links to access the site in different >

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

Here are my estimates: https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage4-xor.zip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

Including the fact that this was posted to FMS a bit later, the deadline would end tomorrow. Given that there are only 3 replies overall so far and the website poll/discussion is still consuming a lot of attention, I would suggest we extend the deadline until next week. I would say the end of

Re: [freenet-dev] Winning design selected

On Sunday, September 04, 2016 06:25:48 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > After that, I have identified a number of coders who can take these files, > convert to HTML, and then publish them on Github using > https://jekyllrb.com/. Note that the text of the site will all be editable For translations we've

[freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

Hereby we begin the 4th stage of the financial allocation poll. You may participate by filling your estimates in to this spreadsheet and mailing it back: https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage4.zip It has been created with LibreOffice but may hopefully as well work

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 07:53:27 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > 7 bugs were modified in August. So lightly used, but still used. I count 89 being modified in August. You likely forgot to switch to "All projects". signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 06:35:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I wasn't specifically thinking about moving away from Mantis, even though > nobody seems to use it any more That is definitely not the case, it has been my primary tool for planning development for years [1]. One rule is: Before *ANY*

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 12:41:35 PM Steve Dougherty wrote: > Additionally, I think many of us - myself included - had been > approaching this as "what do we want xor to do?" I think we should look > into whether alternative people to xor make sense, and to that e

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

Due to the high traffic at other subjects on the mailing list, we're extending the deadline for voting for another week until August 28 inclusive. Please consider voting ASAP. FYI: There are 12 participants currently, so each vote still has a lot of weight. signature.asc Description: This is

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

Same as my last mail about the website, I'll try to have this be the last mail with regards to our discussion here. This sub-thread here isn't helping the project, so I should stop replying to it. Unlike the one to Ian, this one is *not* going to try to be positive. In fact, it will not only be

Re: [freenet-dev] Revamp of front page of our website

Hey, I do realize that I'm annoying you very much with my statements. Thus I'll try to have this be the last email involved in the discussion of your website plans for now. I'll instead stick to writing actual code to trim the website in preparation of a potential revamp. Less input = less work

[freenet-dev] Revamp of front page of our website

As a compensation for causing lots of discussion about whether our current website theme can be salvaged, I did some more work to attempt to bring it to its full capability. TL;DR: - Current old look of the website: https://git.io/v6sRr - Proposed revamp: https://git.io/v6sR6 Individual PRs: -

Re: [freenet-dev] Should we just go ahead and redesign the website?

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 01:12:17 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > Improvements are great, but the website requires a ground-up redesign by a > professional designer. Unless a suitable professional designer volunteers to > do it for free (unlikely), we will need to pay an external contributor. Even if we

Re: [freenet-dev] Should we just go ahead and redesign the website?

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 08:01:20 AM Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 18:17 +, Ian Clarke wrote: > > Well, I have Florent criticizing me for being too democratic, and Xor > > criticising me for not being democratic enough, so how about if you > > guys ju

[freenet-dev] Web of Trust version 0.4.5 finished, changelog & how to install inside

gtracker issue number: - 0006653: [Bugs] IdentityFileProcessor can get triggered during early startup, slows it down (xor) The previous build's changelog promised an improved startup time of WoT of 2 minutes. Unfortunately, in practice, a bug could cause this to become over 20 minutes. Th

Re: [freenet-dev] Should we just go ahead and redesign the website?

To help avoiding having to pay some external contributor to work on the website, we've started doing improvements on our own. We're currently focused on moving stuff to the Wiki so the website doesn't overwhelm new users with walls of text. mrsteveman1 has provided a pull request to move all

Re: [freenet-dev] Should we just go ahead and redesign the website?

On Saturday, August 06, 2016 07:58:30 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > If not, then how about setting a deadline (like august 11th, in one > week) and after that deadline checking how people perceive the value of > redesigning the website. The poll algorithm does *not* work like that. The stage

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

I almost 100% agree with your mail! :) Some additions to your ideas follow: On Saturday, August 06, 2016 09:42:52 AM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org > > wrote: > > The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership,

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

ducted solely with the intent of funding > xor for a year... leaving his assignment/performance apart from the > discussion... how does any of it cater for "after"? I have been the one to explicitly add the following task suggestion to the money poll: > Fundraising:

Re: [freenet-dev] Should we just go ahead and redesign the website?

If nobody else does, I'll take the ungrateful duty of alerting us of the elephant in the room :( You said you wanted more democracy by having the poll on how to spend the money. You blocked the funds with that for 3 months. I am absolutely OK with that and think we should go through with it!

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 11:12:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > x...@freenetproject.org writes: > > So how about we just try the procedure as is, and postpone requests for a > > different one until it is finished and has actually failed obviously? > > As you saw, I did answer to the poll.

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 02:36:25 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Ian Clarke writes: > > I disagree, and you had more than enough opportunity to offer your > > feedback > > on this proposed approach months ago when I first proposed it. > > I did provide feedback. You rejected it and accused

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:48:26 AM Ian Clarke wrote: > I'm open to efforts to clean up the list, if we're going to do it, now is > the time. Any specific ideas how to do that? We have 3268 bugtracker entries. Thanks to this complexity of the project, no matter how much time or efforts we

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 04:08:37 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > Certainly no harm in discussing this since Xor chose to share it, and I > agree that some of Xor's decisions here are questionable. I am very happy if people discuss my votes instead of silently being angry :) Doesn't help me

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

to be serious: I don't think it makes sense to automate something for its first use. The whole algorithm of the poll is new, we don't even yet know whether it will be useful for our goal. No need to automate it before we even know we need it more than once. > Also people > with a

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

Here are my own votes: https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage3-xor.zip I've added a "Comment" column which explains my choices in detail. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ De

[freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll. You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and mailing it back: https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage3.zip It has been created with LibreOffice but may hopefully as well work

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tuesday, August 02, 2016 08:16:15 PM Florent Daigniere wrote: > This has been started three months ago now... and there hasn't been any > visible progress (nothing on this mailing list) for the last two. > What's up? > > It really makes the project look bad. Ian was too busy to finish it for

Re: [freenet-dev] The plugin WebOfTrust could not be loaded

On Friday, July 29, 2016 01:27:47 PM Bert Massop wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:43 AM, wrote: > > I did the following procedure (with build0018): > > 1. Comment out all index creation code in getNewDatabaseConfiguration() > > 2. Start WoT to create a fresh database

Re: [freenet-dev] The plugin WebOfTrust could not be loaded

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 04:22:44 PM Bert Massop wrote: > To xor: a4378e0 seems to be at the root of this problem. Is it at all > possible to unit test this upgrade path? If by "upgrade path" you mean "running a WoT with a new database format versi

Re: [freenet-dev] The plugin WebOfTrust could not be loaded

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 01:33:11 PM Bert Massop wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Moses wrote: > > (plugins.WebOfTrust.WebOfTrust, (51), ERROR): Error during startup > > com.db4o.ext.Db4oIOException > > > > at > >

Re: [freenet-dev] Banner must be removed from website NOW

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:02:42 AM Steve Dougherty wrote: > Agreed. To that end I've been looking into it and found a web designer > who quotes $1.2k for design and development. Is that something we're > interested in? I'll have the next stage of the money poll ready this week, I would say we

Re: [freenet-dev] Testing release build 1475-pre2

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 06:39:39 PM Florent Daigniere wrote: > 2016-06-21 > > Freenet unstable testing prerelease build 1475-pre2 is now available. > > In this build (on top of pre1): > - fix a critical bug: prevent announcement loops > - drop support for negtype9 (non-cummulative ack logic) >

Re: [freenet-dev] Freemail Backtrace on AddAccount

Thanks for reporting this! While I would prefer to spend my volunteer time on WoT instead of Freemail, I can at least offer you to file a bug for this. Here it is: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6876 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [freenet-dev] The plugin WebOfTrust could not be loaded

gt; This needs some changes to the code. It looks like this will only > happen when you switch versions of WoT: what you can try yourself is > to load the WoT version you last used successfully, if that is > possible at all. > > My comments were addressed to xor, who is the WoT devel

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >