Great update as usual. Personally I don’t care about testnets – just release them when they are needed for testing. No need to let the community know in advance when that might be either - surprise us! We like surprises. As long as the awesome weekly updates keep coming we know all is fine.
@happybeing - thanks for your independent efforts on all that is neo-git!
I hope it comes next week. Or the week after that. Or any week whatsoever.
Proud of the hard work everyone is putting into this project and special shout-out to MaidSafe of making all of this possible!
Just upgraded from 500 to gig service in anticipation of the new tests.
Probably unnecessary but for only $9 more per month it can’t hurt.
The 
rewards race is on
@Savage are you buying storage online? from where if you don’t mind me asking?
No I am not. I’ll leave that to when I really need it.
Thanks, @dlux. I really appreciate the boost.
I definitely plan to re-engage the podcast at some point before too long. Life has a tendency to force substitutions of effort, but as launch approaches the podcast will rise toward the surface. I’m really excited to see the progress and will be putting in more time to catch up on the niggling details and reenter the fray.
If anyone can think of reasons or existing examples on the web where 255 bytes is not enough for the domain/nrs name please let us know.
Are we talking just the initial domain name or the entire path/url length? A limit on total path length that is only 255 chars is a problem. I often run into the path length limit on Windows 10 and scream curses at the screen. There is no path length limit in linux ext4 (it might be 4096 chars, unsure) but each file or folder name is limited to 255 chars.
The initial domain name. Not the entire path.
So 255 is the limit for, say, www.google.com or api.jlpell or my.very.long.nrs.name.with.many.subdomains.at.my_top_nrs_name
But you raise an interesting point about path names (which applies to xorurls in general, not just nrs). If windows has, for example, 255 char limit on filenames and mac has, for example, 500 char limit, then it would have implications for any network mounted filesystem that aims to be cross platform.
This is all application level stuff, so I’m not too concerned in the short term, but it’s nice to get it right early on if we can. It’s much easier to give more slack later than try to tighten restrictions that are too loose.
I think it is more related to the filesystem format (ext4 vs fat32 vs ntfs) than an OS thing. The Safe filesystem standard can therefore make its own rules. Regardless, a 255 char limit on total filesystem path length is an atrocity.
It seems this internet domain is probably the longest atm (without .sub.domains. of its own): llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochuchaf.org.uk
So 256 is enough for that.
63 chars long, which is the limit for ‘labels’ ie any one level of a domain name / subdomain. Good find! I wonder if they have some long subdomains too to get up to 255 total chars?! Looking at the site it doesn’t seem to brag about that.
See answer at link below notes standards and seems up to date for that…
Thank you for the heavy work team MaidSafe! Make it Happen!
I add the translation into Bulgarian in the first post 
I could only think of URL query strings with encoded data. However if it’s only about the domain and nothing behind the slash it would be sufficient for any purpose I believe.
safe:// <MY 255 Byte LONG DOMAIN NAME> /?my_query_string=bsyuft72d&super_long_data=over255bytes
