On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:12:06 Luke771 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months.
This
> > will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
> > something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This
> will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
> something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion
> on:
> 1. What should be in 0.8?
> 2.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This
will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion
on:
1. What should be in 0.8?
2. When to
On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:12:06 Luke771 wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months.
This
will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible
On Friday 08 May 2009 04:33:26 Jusa Saari wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
>
> > Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to
> > change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate
> > the missing CHKs and reinsert them,
On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
> Something as simple as "" or "" or "" would be enough to
> change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate
> the missing CHKs and reinsert them, yes?
Or just use numerical procession: "1", "2" ... "23",
On Friday 08 May 2009 04:33:26 Jusa Saari wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 21:54:34 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
Something as simple as or or would be enough to
change the hash of the CHK and would be a known value so we could recreate
the missing CHKs and reinsert them, yes?
Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jusa Saari wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
>> (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile
>> (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK,
On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> (Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile
> (no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and R stands for
> Revocable not Redundant). (Reasonably easy)
Trivial, actually. Simply add a field that
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This
will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion
on:
1. What should be in 0.8?
2. When to release 0.8?
My current view:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
(Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile
(no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and R stands for
Revocable not Redundant). (Reasonably easy)
Trivial, actually. Simply add a field that can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jusa Saari wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:59:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
(Easy) - MHKs (or DHKs) - redundant CHKs for the top block of a splitfile
(no, I don't like RHK, it sounds too much like RSK, and R
Ian has found some more funding, so we are okay for another 6-8 months. This
will be announced properly shortly. This relieves the pressure to get
something out regardless of what it is. So we can have a sensible discussion
on:
1. What should be in 0.8?
2. When to release 0.8?
My current view:
13 matches
Mail list logo
