Nick Mathewson:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Jacob Appelbaum jacob@appelbaum.net wrote:
Nick Mathewson:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jacob Appelbaum jacob@appelbaum.net wrote:
Hi Scott,
It is nice to see you posting again, I had wondered where you had gone.
Scott Bennett:
I know this really belongs on tor-talk, but I haven't been subscribedto it for a long time now. Sorry if posting this here bothers anyone.
Seems like a fine place to discuss relay problems, which is what it sounds like, no?
Maaybe! The very best place would be the bugtracker, of course. (I do seem to recall that you have some issues with trac -- I'm just mentioning the bugtracker so that other people don't get the idea that the mailing lists are the best place for bug reports. But a bug report on the mailing list is much much better than no bug report at all.)
Oh, I don't mean to imply not to file bugs but rather, if we have a guard that fails circuits, I'd say we should discuss it openly. Is it a load issue? Or something else?
We should definitely discuss stuff openly, yeah. It was the possible ExcludeNodes bug that seemed most like an issue that would go well with the bugtracker to me.
Agreed - that said - I like the idea of a client telling users that a given guard is failing a lot of circuits - is there anyway today that we can start to learn the distribution of those failures? Say with some useful client side logging?
All the best, Jake