The problem is that this changes the expected time to reply, which means
that it is a protocol change since it will result in nodes being angry at
each other for no reason should one have implemented it and not the other.
I do agree that we need to move this up to the top of the list though (I
mu
> Yes, but setting it to high will increase traffic. A setting of 0.5 means
> that half of the hops on a route will not decrease HTL, meaning a 15 hop
> request would on average take 22 hops. The way to do it is make the
> probability increase as the htl decreases. At HTL 1, you have a 0.5
> p
> Of course significant changes should generally not be made before a
> release, but common sense should also be applied. Adding a small
> probability that a HTL will not be decremented is very straight-forward
> and doesn't really leave much room for bugs.
You can't release untested code! We m
Yes, but setting it to high will increase traffic. A setting of 0.5 means
that half of the hops on a route will not decrease HTL, meaning a 15 hop
request would on average take 22 hops. The way to do it is make the
probability increase as the htl decreases. At HTL 1, you have a 0.5
probability,
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:39:08AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 09:24:46AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 02:53:12AM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 09:24:46AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 02:53:12AM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:16:55PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > > > While I agree that this i
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 02:53:12AM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:16:55PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > > While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
> > > > that right befo
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:16:55PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
> > > that right before a release. The process is add features, test features,
> > > fix bugs,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:16:55PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
> > that right before a release. The process is add features, test features,
> > fix bugs, test more, release. We should just release now and then add it
> > and
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:16:55PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
> > that right before a release. The process is add features, test features,
> > fix bugs, test more, release. We should just release now and then add it
> > and
> While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
> that right before a release. The process is add features, test features,
> fix bugs, test more, release. We should just release now and then add it
> and try for another release soon.
Of course significant changes should
> is decremented or not. If this hasn't been done already, we should
> perhaps make the change before this release 0.3.6 (which I will do
> tonight PST).
While I agree that this is a high priority, you can't make a change like
that right before a release. The process is add features, test featu
12 matches
Mail list logo
