Scott Bennett schrieb:
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. 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.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?