> On 13 Jan 2018, at 08:07, Andreas Krey wrote:
>
> (Earlier reply has somehow vanished...)
>
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:49:16 +, teor wrote:
>> ...
>> When there are multiple supported tor versions, which one should be stable?
>> At the moment, we support 0.2.5 and 0.2.9 as long-term suppor
Yawning Angel writes:
> It's worth keeping in mind that no one to my knowledge has implemented
> prop 279 in the tor code itself, though there is (IIRC) a python kludge
> that kind of allows development.
Said kludge is here, for completeness:
https://github.com/meejah/torns
(It's definitely
(Earlier reply has somehow vanished...)
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:49:16 +, teor wrote:
...
> When there are multiple supported tor versions, which one should be stable?
> At the moment, we support 0.2.5 and 0.2.9 as long-term support, and 0.3.0 and
> 0.3.1 as regular releases.
The newest/highest
> We've merged a new list of fallbacks in the version 2.0.0 format.
Hi Tim. Last couple weeks I've been working on a Fallback and Endosome
branch for Stem. Just finished and merged the former...
https://gitweb.torproject.org/stem.git/commit/?id=ea2752c
Stem now supports the v2 format, has additi
Hello,
Thank you for your helpful review, teor.
I updated the proposal from most of your comments (see attached .txt)
and I respond inline to add some precisions relative to a few of your
questions.
Btw, I've mirrored my private repo to github
https://github.com/frochet/Waterfilling, such t
On 2018-01-12 07:26:52 at +, grarpamp wrote:
To wit, one lesser...
#endif
nullius.c:1:2: error: #endif without #if
;)
Touché. I suppose I’ll be babysitting the build for awhile. Fair
enough?
--
null...@nym.zone | PGP ECC: 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
Bitcoin: bc1qca
(I began writing this earlier, but returned (-1) with ENOTIME.)
On 2018-01-11 at 22:44:56 +, teor wrote:
This thread is off-topic,
I know. But for understandable reasons, as stated below; and with all
due apologies for a “-dev” list:
On 2018-01-11 20:00:45 at +, nullius wrote:
