On 2008-12-13, at 13:07, Markus Wanner wrote:
>
>
> However, that is a marketing decision [1], which should not be mixed
> with the technical discussion here. Speaking of a "synchronous commit"
> is utterly misleading, because the commit itself is exactly the thing
> that's *not* synchronous.
>
> [1]: Some people like the term "virtually synchronous" for marketing
> purposes. That's at least half-ways technically correct.
Marketing people are virtually trustworthy, from my life experience.
If you ask me, this is just preposterous.
