[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gratuitous change blocks upgrade to :-(

     Sorry I'm so far behind on email.  Will try to catch up soon.
     On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:05:45 +0200 Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On Sep 11, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>>> In any case, Sebastian started a trac entry for this one:
>>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1929
>>> wherein he starts out by listing a reason that we shouldn't fix it.
>>> Please add more pros and cons to the trac entry.
>> it'd be nice if further discussion could be moved to the bug
>> report. Nick had a nice idea how to solve the situation
>> without breaking our controllers. It would be great to get
>> feedback on this (positive or negative) so please do reply
>> with your thoughts.
>> Patches for the documentation are also welcome, if they
>> help to clarify the situation.
>> Thanks
>> Sebastian
>To let those know who didn't start monitoring the bug
>report, as of 851255170 we implemented a new feature
>to allow using multiple lines when specifying a torrc entry.
>To indicate that a line ends in the torrc but Tor should treat
>the next line as if it belonged to the current line, use a
>backslash at the end of the line. Comments inside such a
>block are ignored.

     What terminates a comment inside such a block?
>To provide an example, here is what the new syntax might
>look like (basically all previously valid torrcs should remain
>     ExcludeNodes \
>     # I don't like kittens
>        lolcat1, \

     Is the "lolcat1," part of the comment about kittens?

>     lolcat2 \
>     # / I also don't like bunnies! I really hate them. \

     Is the "\" part of the comment?  The early comment line about
kittens lacks a "\".  Are both validly continued lines?

>        ,cutebunny, extracutebunny, \
>     # and this node appeared on my mother's birthday
>                           birthdaynode
>     StrictNodes 1
>I hope this is an acceptable solution for those who wanted
>a change, and doesn't upset those that thought the old
>behaviour was like it should be.
     Wow.  That's the most incredibly *ugly* kluge I've seen in many a year,
but if it works, then at least it does provide the functionality.  I'll
make the required changes to a copy of torrc and then try the upgrade to sometime in the next few days.  Answers to the questions
above would be helpful, though, in making those modifications.
     However, I don't understand the need for compatibility for tor
controllers on this one.  It seems to me that changes to the ExcludeNodes
and ExcludeExitNodes lists are the kind of thing that should require
rereading torrc, throwing away the previous lists and replacing them with
the new ones read from torrc.  Controllers should have the ability to
trigger rereading of torrc, but not to make this sort of major operational
change on the fly directly rather than by through rereading torrc.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/