Skip to content

Conversation

@cheezus1
Copy link
Contributor

closes #111

@cytadela8
Copy link
Contributor

cytadela8 commented Nov 10, 2017

Hmm... I didn't know about #111. This conflicts with my work on #115.

@cytadela8
Copy link
Contributor

I suggest, I will try to propose an overall solution to peer sync this evening.

@thepiwo
Copy link
Collaborator

thepiwo commented Nov 10, 2017

Yeah maybe it is conflicting, but we need both issues solved. Could you integrate these changes in your work?

@cytadela8
Copy link
Contributor

@thepiwo I will try to do that this evening, but at the moment I think this PR conflicts with my design choices. I will try to think how to make everything work this evening and probably I will propose some solution.

@cytadela8 cytadela8 mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2017
2 tasks
@cytadela8
Copy link
Contributor

After analysing possibilities I took the test fix and max_peers limit from this code. Sadly most of this code conflicts with peer sync design I would like to introduce with #123. Sorry for not realizing the conflict earlier!

@thepiwo
Copy link
Collaborator

thepiwo commented Nov 11, 2017

@cytadela8 so we merge this, prior to #123? Or do we ignore this?

@cytadela8
Copy link
Contributor

@thepiwo We ignore this. I cherry-picked one commit and rewritten max_peers.

@thepiwo
Copy link
Collaborator

thepiwo commented Nov 11, 2017

replaced with #123

@thepiwo thepiwo closed this Nov 11, 2017
@thepiwo thepiwo deleted the GH-111 branch October 5, 2018 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

after adding a peer add his peers

4 participants