On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:37 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday February 2 2017 21:50:38 Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >>You missed the point. This "bit rot" is not about disk damage but >>about software incompatibility. ZFS doesn't help with that... > > You mean diffs that no longer apply cleanly? In that case you missed our > point. Being able to consult intermediate versions of diffs, abandoned diffs > etc. is not to be able to apply them "as is". If there were no value in the > kind of code those diffs (can) contain we'd not be using git or git wouldn't > be preserving every single bit of history.
Rene, we aren't talking about diffs here. Not even close. What we are talking about is things like silent data corruption caused by upgrade edge cases, database encoding changes and data storage format changes. Not to mention changes in the software stack itself, and our long term ability to keep it running. > > > Oh well. This is just another expression of FOSS's biggest weakness. Every > project has this centre-of-the-universe tendency that apparently justifies > breaking things for large parts of the user base whenever the project feels > it's justified. I'm not even going to respond to that. > > R Regards, Ben
