>> So would that mean I would need bitkeeper installed in order to change my
>> password?
>
> No, that's just one way to solve the problem. Another way would be to have
> a master/slave relationship between the replicas sort of like CVS. In fact,
> you could use CVS.
I'm not sure that's any less vomitworthy.
Keeping things simple that users and/or sysadmins have to deal with is a
Good Thing (tm). I'd have the complexity in the kernel, where complexity
is pushed to the kernel developers, thanks.
>> And IIRC, bitkeeper is not free either?
>
> (... some slighty twisted concept of free snipped.)
>
> But this is more than a bit off topic...
No it's not that far off topic, my point is that you're shifting the complexity
problems to other areas (eg. system mangement / the application level /
filesystems / scheduler load balancing) rather than solving them.
Martin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:39 EST