SVN is not truly distributed?

In an interview with Larry McVoy, the BitKeeper's founder,
there's a remark that contrasts BitKeeper with all other VCS's:

[http://www.kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=222]

  I will predict that you will never see a centralized system evolve into
  a distributed system. So CVS/Subversion/ClearCase/Perforce/etc will all
  stay with the centralized client/server architecture.
  They may try to replicate distributed systems and it will sort of work,
  but all the corner cases will not work.
  You need to design a distributed system to be distributed from day one.

Is it the feeling of Subversion's founders that Subversion is not truly
distributed? I thought that the web-based nature of SVN allows for easy
replication of repositories and multiple repositories, and modular
architecture allows to manage those locally and add syncing globally in
any n-way fashion needed.

What exactly can be missing in SVN "from day 1"?
I'd like to understand if there's a fundamental issue here
SVN needs to address in order to provide everything BitKeeper
can eventually.

Cheers,
Alexy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 6 16:18:19 2002