From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-03-15T17:17:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Why SVN?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:26:52PM +0900, Trans wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mar 14, 9:07 pm, "Austin Ziegler" <halosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > People say that distributed systems have cheap branching, but I find
> > that very hard to believe, since (at least in the ones that I've
> > tried, and I have a hard time imagining how others would differ) the
> > branches are physical copies in a different location. That's cheap for
> > the making, yes, but your total storage cost goes up (since none of
> > the advantages of having a single repository can be found) and it then
> > becomes possible to *lose* branches from your repository (cf fragility
> > above).
> 
> I have actually given that some thought. While not the case presently,
> I think eventually this will become a mute point. Ultimately file
> systems themselves will manage data redundancy. I think of it as
> "holographic" memory. I don't know why exactly as it has nothing much
> to do with actual holographs, but it sounds cool ;-)

The term "holographic", in reference to data storage and similar
subjects, refers to a three dimensional indexing system.  The term
"holographic memory" is already in use, generally involving
next-generation storage technologies that involve high density data
storage indexed three-dimensionally in photopolymers or crystalline
structures.

While I'm waxing pedantic, I may as well point out that the word you
wanted was probably "moot", not "mute".

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/