Re: [9fans] silly replica question (repeated m msgs won't go away)

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:00:21AM -0500, David Presotto wrote:
>
> On Tue Feb 10 07:39:37 EST 2004, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > But replication deserves being done "right" rather than heuristically
>
> Describe right a little more.

I do really mean that in the grey area between exact and heuristically
adequate, I'd like to be closer to exact.  My opinion is that
replica has weaknesses that diminish the "faith" factor whereas
"dump" certainly doesn't or doesn't seem to.

What might be a different approach would be to provide a measurement
of the uncertainty in replica, but somehow I can't help believing
that there is a better paradigm implicit in dump9660 that can be
exploited instead.

Does the above help?  "Right" as in as accurate as produced by the
dump9660 procedure just ahead of generating the new release.  For
all I know this is already the case and it's the baseline that
triggers replica errors, but that needs proof.

Sorry if I seem to be pontificating, as I mentioned it's a half
formed idea and I'm looking to give it a little more solidity.  If
it's preferable to continue this in private mail, please don't
hesitate to point it out.

++L