114 lines
8.7 KiB
HTML
114 lines
8.7 KiB
HTML
{% extends "_layout.html" %}
|
||
{% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 165{% endblock %}
|
||
{% block content %}<h3>I2P dev meeting, January 24, 2006</h3>
|
||
<div class="irclog">
|
||
<p>15:25 < jrandom> 0) hi</p>
|
||
<p>15:25 < jrandom> 1) Net status</p>
|
||
<p>15:25 < jrandom> 2) New build process</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 < jrandom> 3) ???</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 < jrandom> 0) hi</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 * jrandom waves</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 < jrandom> weekly status notes up @ http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2006-January/001254.html</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 -!- Teal`c [tealc@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 < bar> hi</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 < jrandom> lets jump on in to 1) Net status</p>
|
||
<p>15:26 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:27 < jrandom> I don't have much more to add beyond whats in the mail... anyone have any questions/comments/concerns?</p>
|
||
<p>15:27 <+Complication> Moving to CVS build -6 has been... challenging</p>
|
||
<p>15:28 < jrandom> aye, understandable</p>
|
||
<p>15:28 <+Complication> Net is probably doing fine. It's just my node whcih isn't.</p>
|
||
<p>15:28 <+Complication> =which</p>
|
||
<p>15:28 < bar> it's a rough road, but it's the right road. i'm 100% supportive of this move</p>
|
||
<p>15:29 < jrandom> tunnel building on 2+ hop tunnels is a pain, with nasty failure rates as has been reported</p>
|
||
<p>15:29 < jrandom> much of this is likely to be addressed with 0.6.2's new creation crypto, but I'm not convinced that all of it will be.</p>
|
||
<p>15:30 < jrandom> I do wonder whether we'll be able to get it reliable enough prior to that though. But we'll try</p>
|
||
<p>15:31 <+Complication> If there's any stats I can provide (though you probably have more than enough of them at your own disposal) just ask</p>
|
||
<p>15:31 < jrandom> so, 1 hop tunnels are fairly reliable on the latest builds, but those who need 2+ hop tunnels should expect... bumps</p>
|
||
<p>15:31 < jrandom> thanks Complication</p>
|
||
<p>15:32 <+Complication> Most of my apps are 2+0..1</p>
|
||
<p>15:32 <+Complication> And the router itself too, if I remember correct</p>
|
||
<p>15:33 < jrandom> well, I could suggest staying at the release, but the release will be building short tunnels anyway if and when it encounters catastrophic failures</p>
|
||
<p>15:34 < jrandom> (s/short/1hop/)</p>
|
||
<p>15:34 <+Complication> Right, I could probably adjust it to 2+0</p>
|
||
<p>15:34 <+Complication> And have less spectacular effects</p>
|
||
<p>15:35 < jrandom> aye, though that'll still, in effect, turn to 2+/-1, but it'll try its best to stay at 2hops</p>
|
||
<p>15:36 <+Complication> With build -6 too?</p>
|
||
<p>15:36 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:36 < jrandom> no, the current release will fail hard rather than go to fallback tunnels</p>
|
||
<p>15:37 <+Complication> Or is there probability involved, which never quite goes zero?</p>
|
||
<p>15:37 < jrandom> the trouble there is that if it goes for 10 minutes without building the tunnels, it'll restart the router (due to the watchdog)</p>
|
||
<p>15:37 <+Complication> Saw it once :)</p>
|
||
<p>15:37 < jrandom> no, -5 or newer will use exactly the hop lengths allowed by the client (2+/-0 means only 2 hop tunnels. never anything else)</p>
|
||
<p>15:39 < jrandom> ok, anyone have anything else for 1) Net status?</p>
|
||
<p>15:39 < jrandom> or, I suppose we're already discussing 2) New build process ;)</p>
|
||
<p>15:40 < jrandom> does anyone have anything else to discuss on 2) New build process?</p>
|
||
<p>15:40 <+Complication> Not much here, anymore :D</p>
|
||
<p>15:41 < jrandom> hehe ok, if not, lets shimmy on over to 3) ???</p>
|
||
<p>15:41 < jrandom> anyone have anything else they want to discuss?</p>
|
||
<p>15:42 < bar> may i ask, how many backwards incompatible changes are lined up now, and if some (all?) can be put into one release?</p>
|
||
<p>15:42 < bar> i mean, is there more than one backwards incompatible release planned, until 0.6.2?</p>
|
||
<p>15:42 < jrandom> bar: the hope is to do them all at once</p>
|
||
<p>15:42 < jrandom> (though there may be further ones down the line)</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 -!- Complication [Complicati@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 -!- Complication2 [Complicati@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 < bar> hmac bug, new crypto and restricted routes at once?</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 < bar> that's a tall order :)</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 < jrandom> restricted routes?</p>
|
||
<p>15:43 < jrandom> the hmac bug "fix" is changing one value ;)</p>
|
||
<p>15:44 < bar> ah :)</p>
|
||
<p>15:44 -!- Complication2 is now known as Complication</p>
|
||
<p>15:44 < bar> umm.. perhaps restricted routes was 2.0..</p>
|
||
<p>15:44 < jrandom> yeah, but restricted routes will be doable without losing backwards compatability</p>
|
||
<p>15:45 < jrandom> (in fact, it can be done with 0.6.2, if done carefully, to a degree)</p>
|
||
<p>15:45 < bar> ok, great</p>
|
||
<p>15:45 < jrandom> I'm also thinking of when to drop tcp... maybe in the next release</p>
|
||
<p>15:46 < jrandom> or maybe after, so we don't have /too much/ at once</p>
|
||
<p>15:49 < jrandom> ok, anyone have anything else for the meeting?</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 < jrandom> if not</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 * jrandom winds</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 < stealth> I have some question: I noticed that all eepsites are mapped to the external internet e.g. http://tracker.postman.i2p.tin0.de/. Is that wanted ?</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 < jrandom> [saved]</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 < jrandom> sure, I think thats cool</p>
|
||
<p>15:51 < jrandom> anyone who publishes information should expect that their information is public </p>
|
||
<p>15:52 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:52 < jrandom> I think tino has a way for people to topopt out as well</p>
|
||
<p>15:52 < tethra> that was short</p>
|
||
<p>15:53 < stealth> They are also indexed by google...</p>
|
||
<p>15:53 < jrandom> isnt that a good thing stealth?</p>
|
||
<p>15:53 < Complication> Did it not involve some convention similar to "robots.txt"</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 < jrandom> aye Complication </p>
|
||
<p>15:54 < Complication> (might be best to ask tin0)</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 <@postman> damn, i am too late</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 <@postman> (again)</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 < jrandom> nah, hasn't ended yet postman :)</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 < Complication> He wrote about it in the forum, at some point</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 < Complication> Might be findable there</p>
|
||
<p>15:54 <@postman> ahh cool ( hello then) :)</p>
|
||
<p>15:55 < jrandom> yeah, its opt-out-able, but I don't understand the concept of opt-out for the i2p content (are people pushing some idea of 'copyright' - "don't copy my stuff or make it visible other places"?)</p>
|
||
<p>15:55 < jrandom> but, whatever, tino is being nicer than I would be regarding inproxies ;)</p>
|
||
<p>15:56 -!- Rawn [Rawn@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:56 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:57 -!- Karellen [Karellen@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>15:57 < Complication> Yes indeed, the assumption shouldn't follow that other providers of in-proxies will be equally nice</p>
|
||
<p>15:58 -!- Karellen [Karellen@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:58 -!- Rawn [Rawn@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>15:58 -!- mode/#i2p [+v Rawn] by chanserv</p>
|
||
<p>15:59 < Complication> Information intended to be secret... is best simply not published</p>
|
||
<p>15:59 < tethra> indeed :/</p>
|
||
<p>15:59 < stealth> Yes but it might turn too much publicity to i2p before evrything is really totally save. The problem seems to me that I2p has at the moment not enough nodes for a very good anonymity...</p>
|
||
<p>16:00 -!- Complication [Complicati@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>16:00 < jrandom> our anonymity isn't dependent upon the size, and i2p has been googled plenty</p>
|
||
<p>16:01 < jrandom> (or, the base level of anonymity isn't dependent upon the size)</p>
|
||
<p>16:01 < jrandom> but, of course, no one who needs hard anonymity should use i2p now.</p>
|
||
<p>16:01 -!- digger3 [digger3@irc2p] has quit [Connection reset by peer]</p>
|
||
<p>16:01 -!- digger3 [digger3@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>16:02 < bar> i wouldn't worry, 99% would just ignore the seemingly dead link that turns up on google... the other 1% is likely somewhat geeky and would want to know more</p>
|
||
<p>16:03 -!- gloin [gloin@irc2p] has joined #i2p</p>
|
||
<p>16:03 < bar> (well.. dead, that depends on tino's inproxy being up or not, of course)</p>
|
||
<p>16:05 < jrandom> ok, anyone have anything else for the meeting?</p>
|
||
<p>16:06 < jrandom> if not</p>
|
||
<p>16:06 * jrandom winds up</p>
|
||
<p>16:07 * jrandom *baf*s the meeting closed</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
{% endblock %} |