[tahoe-dev] what do we want from decentralized introduction?

Zooko O'Whielacronx zooko at zooko.com
Tue Jul 20 06:09:29 UTC 2010

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Brian Warner <warner at lothar.com> wrote:
> I'd discourage a change that causes tahoe.cfg's [node]introducer.furl to
> be ignored. I think it's just too confusing.

Let's see, the proposal was that we would warn the user if we were
ignoring it. (How does one warn the user exactly, though!?)

Alternately, we could warn the user if it exists at all, and then go
ahead and use it if it exists.

> In fact, even in a multi-introducer environment, you need the tahoe.cfg
> entry as a bootstrap.

You could bootstrap by putting an introducer furl into the
introducer.furls file instead.

> So I think that the node should use the union of tahoe.cfg's
> [node]introducer.furl and the contents of BASEDIR/introducer.furls as
> introducers.

Are you sure this is what you prefer, Brian?

I just posted a comment on the ticket saying:

I'm really not sure that I agree with Brian's comment in
http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004663.html . The
way Brian proposed and Faruq agreed means that there are "two ways to
do it"—you can either edit your tahoe.cfg file's introducer.furl or
you can edit your introducer.furls file. Users who see one of them may
assume that it is the only one and then be surprised when they get
different behavior than they expected (due to the existence of the
other one). I guess I'm too sleepy to go into detail right now, but I
want Faruq to know that I looked at this ticket tonight. :-)



More information about the tahoe-dev mailing list