4 | | -1, this would cause disruption and multiple places to set the same options (since we would have to support existing {{{tahoe.cfg}}} files in addition to any new ones). |
| 3 | So, when she was editing {{{tahoe.cfg}}}, she saw {{{helper=False}}} and {{{storage=False}}} and, since she thought that she was configuring a client, she thought she ought to turn those two settings on, because the only interpretation of those settings was whether this client can use those services. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Possible fix would be to add comments in the default {{{tahoe.cfg}}} file, such as a line next to {{{helper=False}}} saying {{{# Shall this node run a helper service that clients can use?}}}. Also, maybe big visible separators delineating which configuration options are about clients and which are about servers. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | A larger fix might be to split the client-related and server-related configuration into two separate files, possibly named {{{~/.tahoe/client.cfg}}} and {{{~/.tahoe/server.cfg}}}. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | (Tahoe-LAFS grew out of the P2P tradition and we often thought of a single "node" performing both client and server behavior. But in practice nowadays that is a very rare way to use it. Note that I'm not proposing that we make it impossible for a single node to do both! I'm only proposing that the terminology, docs, and configuration files assume that one node is going to perform only one of those roles, the better to match user assumptions and common usage.) |