1166 has already been released, so using trunk after 1166 got out
essentially is "1166+minors"
Maybe I am wrong here?
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:27, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
>
>> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
>> 1165+minors.
1166 has already been released, so using trunk after 1166 got out
essentially is "1166+minors"
Maybe I am wrong here?
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
>> 1165+minors.
>>
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:28:38 +0100
"freenetwork at web.de" wrote:
> Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166,
> but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk.
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
> Great! However I thoug
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:27:43 +0100
"freenetwork at web.de" wrote:
>
> bqz69 wrote:
> > You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
> > ***
> >
[top posting corrected]
> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
> 1165+minors.
Now re-upgrade again or your nod
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:28, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166,
> but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk.
1166 is simply 1165 plus two NPE fixes. If it works in 1165 then it works in
1166.
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:27, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
> 1165+minors.
No, you tried trunk, which is completely different.
>
> bqz69 wrote:
> > You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
> > ***
> >
> > On Tues
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:28:38 +0100
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166,
> but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk.
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
> Great!
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:27:43 +0100
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> bqz69 wrote:
> > You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
> > ***
> >
[top posting corrected]
> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
> 1165+minors.
Now re-upgrade ag
Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166,
but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
>
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:37, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just updat
I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
1165+minors.
bqz69 wrote:
> You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
> ***
>
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10.37.19 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just updated to current head and have to find to
You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
***
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10.37.19 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
> nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
>
> Be it either the found data structure is "too ol
It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:37, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
> nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
>
> Be it either the found data structure is "too old"
Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166,
but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
>
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just updated t
I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to
1165+minors.
bqz69 wrote:
> You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
> ***
>
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10.37.19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just updated to current head and have to find to my d
Hi guys,
I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
Be it either the found data structure is "too old" and inaccessible:
Error: Archive failure
Freenet was unable to retrieve this file.
This is a fatal error. It is unlikely that retryi
It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code.
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
> nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
>
> Be it either the found data structure is "too old" and
You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday.
***
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10.37.19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
> nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
>
> Be it either the found data structure is "too old" a
Hi guys,
I just updated to current head and have to find to my dislike that
nearly nothing is fetchable anymore.
Be it either the found data structure is "too old" and inaccessible:
Error: Archive failure
Freenet was unable to retrieve this file.
This is a fatal error. It is unlikely that retryi
18 matches
Mail list logo
