[or-cvs] r12432: decide that messing with fallback-concensus for 0.2.0.10-alp (tor/trunk/doc)

[arma@xxxxxxxx]

Author: arma
Date: 2007-11-07 23:43:43 -0500 (Wed, 07 Nov 2007)
New Revision: 12432

Modified:
   tor/trunk/doc/TODO
Log:
decide that messing with fallback-concensus for 0.2.0.10-alpha
isn't worth it. also mention bug 546 again.


Modified: tor/trunk/doc/TODO
===================================================================
--- tor/trunk/doc/TODO	2007-11-08 04:21:35 UTC (rev 12431)
+++ tor/trunk/doc/TODO	2007-11-08 04:43:43 UTC (rev 12432)
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
         X Abandoned
 
 Items blocking 0.2.0.10-alpha:
+  - Some resolution for (the reopened) bug 546.
   - We should back out the MBTF->WFU Guard factors, since they open us
     up to new attacks, and don't this "median" notion doesn't necessarily
     help us distinguish between "was good enough to be a guard when
@@ -31,20 +32,14 @@
   median WFU of the set. In addition, anybody born more than a month ago
   who has >=50% WFU is always a winner.
 
-  - Should we ship with a fallback-consensus? Where in the tarball does
-    it go? What's the process for choosing it?
-    - We can, but we don't have to now.  Stick it in place of the
-      empty fallback-consensus file in src/config if you like. -NM
-    - To choose, just grab the most recent consensus you have. -NM
-
   - If 1.5*MaxCircuitDirtiness is more than KeepAlive, do we then send
     a KeepAlive and reset our timeout, thus never reaching 1.5*MCD?
     - Aw, crud.  We could keep track of how long it's been since
       we last did anything _other_ than a keepalive, I guess. -NM
 
-  o "When reporting clock skew, and we only have a lower bound on
-    the amount of skew, amount anyway, marked as a lower bound.
-    [XXX Nick: what does this mean??]"
+For Tor 0.2.0.11-alpha:
+  - Put a consensus in place of the empty fallback-consensus file in
+    src/config and see what breaks.
 
 
 Things we'd like to do in 0.2.0.x: