[Gajim-devel] Fwd: UPDATE: net/gajim to 0.12 and drop maintainership

Nikos Kouremenos kourem at gmail.com
Sat Dec 20 00:26:37 CET 2008


releasing after so much time means a lot of pressure. Since all guys here
want the best for Gajim I think that (a) there is no need to argue so much
about stuff, just let it be for a while and a .1 will come and fix
regressions and (b) let everyone take some days off relax and see what's the
feedback then about 0.12. Afterall noone is /forced/ to update.

Next major release should be Gajim 1.0

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 19:39, Jonathan Schleifer <js-gajim at webkeks.org>wrote:

> Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> > As it's not possiblt to have private mail, let's continue here.
> >
> > Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> > > Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jonathan Schleifer a écrit :
> > > It's not. It's just that I want to show you that it's not true that
> > > this is only affecting GPRS users.
> >
> > thousands of people uses svn version and have no problem, it's why I
> > still thing xmpp ping is a good thing.
> Who also complained about frequent disconnects, yes.
> > You can look in trac, some people are disappointed because they send a
> > message, and have no answer. They have to wait 10 minutes at least to
> > know they are disconnected. Gajim is a *instant* messager. Having to
> > wait 10 minutes to know we are no more connected is not an option in
> > my opinion.
> And ping would help there how? Gajim would disconnect and can't
> reconnect, as the connection is dead. If the connection wouldn't be
> dead, TCP/IP would have fixed that already. If TCP/IP couldn't recover
> the connection and it hangs, reconnecting won't work. The only case
> where a reconnect might work is if TCP/IP interrupts the connection.
> > > I committed it to trunk, like always. And I told you that I do that
> > > and asked you to backport it to 0.12. Plus, I'm not on the
> > > translators list, as I can't subscribe, which I also already told
> > > you.
> >
> > translations was for 0.12. I didn't see why it was for trunk.
> Because the translator based on trunk and also translated the XHTML
> stuff etc.
> > And I
> > don't know when you told me to commit it to 0.12 branch, nor why you
> > can't do that.
> I don't backport changes to 0.12, you do. Noone except you committed to
> the 0.12 branch at all. Everybody always committed to trunk and you
> backported it. Why should that be different now?
> > As you cannot be in translators mailling list, I'll
> > maintership to someone who can receive and review patches from other
> > translators.
> You could just manually subscribe me…
> > > Why not send a blank space every 55 sec to avoid routers closing
> > > idle connections? That would also detect if our connection is dead,
> > > thanks to TCP/IP. And that's what one really understands when
> > > talking about keep alive. What we do is ping, not keep alive.
> >
> > See my comments above. Having to wait 10 minutes for an *instant*
> > messager is not an option in my opinion.
> You don't have to wait for 10 minutes. Either the connection can be
> recovered and lags for a time, in which case a reconnect would fail, or
> TCP/IP disconnects you, in which you can reconnect and it might
> succeed again. But when a TCP/IP connection is dead, a reconnect won't
> work either. So where's the point?
> Plus, it's not 10 minutes. It's only a long time if we don't send
> anything. But sending anything doesn't mean we need to send a ping. We
> can send a space, that's enough. If the TCP/IP connection has an error,
> TCP/IP will close it on the next send. So we send a space and detect
> that the connection isn't working anymore. No need to XMPP ping.
> > Sure we have to find a solution. But that can (and will IMO) take a
> > long time ...
> There's no need for it to take a long time. Why not just send a space
> every 55 sec and let TCP/IP handle it for us? You always compare having
> no keep alive at all to having XMPP ping. Why not compare XMPP ping to
> having a keep alive the normal way, which is sending a space? That
> *WILL* force TCP/IP to close the connection if it's dead.
> I really wonder why every other client and all servers are fine with
> just sending a space and why we are not… And I wonder why nobody
> complained about dead connections not being detected by them… (Again:
> No keep alive is something completely different than sending a space.
> With no keep alive, it might really take 10 minutes)
> --
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> Gajim-devel mailing list
> Gajim-devel at gajim.org
> http://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lagaule.org/pipermail/gajim-devel/attachments/20081220/287ce073/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Gajim-devel mailing list