pool vs nopeer

[Eric S. Raymond]

Copying Mark and devel, everyone should know about the task dependencies.

Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net>:
> I think [the fact that the pool keyword can't combine with nopeer is] a bug.
> 
> It should be reasonable to find, but may take a while to learn that chunk of 
> code.

You are in a maze of twisty little dependencies, all different.

We should change the client-start page and the Stratum-1-Microserver-HOWTO
example to use 'pool', but that should wait on the pool/nopeer bug being
fixed.

Fixing the pool/nopeer bug will have to be done twice unless we land
Daniel's protocol-machine refactoring.  Might have to be done *three* times
if his redesign of the access-control options requires it.

Daniel's protocol-machine refactoring is a big, potentially
incompatible change.  Which, now that 0.9.4 is shipped, we should land
anyway.  But verifying rigorously that it doesn't introduce a
regression will require TESTFRAME.

Conclusion: TESTFRAME just went from "we need it someday" to critical-path.
Well, we were preparing for another swing at it anyway.

Mark, I think this dependency chain defines our targets for 0.9.5.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>