Re: directory authority/authorities need(s) updating?

[Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:02:28PM +0100, Dominik Schaefer wrote:
> Scott Bennett schrieb:
> >The latest consensus file appears to have 0.2.0.18-alpha listed as
> >a recommended server version, but not 0.2.0.16-alpha or 0.2.0.17-alpha,
> >even though it still lists 0.2.0.11-alpha, 0.2.0.12-alpha, and
> >0.2.0.15-alpha.  Also, the individual status documents are still in
> >considerable disagreement with each other.  Are the directory authority
> >operators getting careless?
> Mhmm. I think, 16-alpha missed a file in the release and 17-alpha had a 
> huge memory leak, I think, it is sane no to recommend them.

Right. I dropped 0.2.0.16-alpha and 0.2.0.17-alpha from recommended server
versions for the reasons you cite. Any server running 0.2.0.17-alpha
is going to bloat to the point that it endangers other processes on
the machine.

There are actually only three v2 authorities that recommend versions:
moria1, moria2, and tor26. And I believe just two of these (moria1 and
tor26) are the sole v3 authorities that recommend versions.

So Scott, don't worry too much about the "careless" directory operators,
especially since we haven't ramped up to having more versioning
authorities yet. Our goal isn't to always keep them perfectly in sync
anyway -- the goal is to have the majority opinion be a reasonable one.

> 18-alpha is different, but it is quite new, I would not be surprised if it 
> is recommended not until a few days in the wild, but I don't know the 
> policy about that.

My Internet is not very good for this week, so I figured I'd push out
0.2.0.18-alpha (and change recommended versions) before I disappeared. You
can read its ChangeLog entry if you want a sneak preview; eventually
I'll send an official announce about it.

Hope that helps,
--Roger