‘The multiple repository tool’. How Google kludged around the split-repo problem when you don’t have a monorepo.
I really wish Docker/CoreOS would look at copying some of the deterministic-build ideas from Nix; see also http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/10/13/deterministic-and-minimal-docker-images/
In his excellent blog post […] Jeff Hodges recommends that you use the CAP theorem to critique systems. A lot of people have taken that advice to heart, describing their systems as “CP” (consistent but not available under network partitions), “AP” (available but not consistent under network partitions), or sometimes “CA” (meaning “I still haven’t read Coda’s post from almost 5 years ago”). I agree with all of Jeff’s other points, but with regard to the CAP theorem, I must disagree. The CAP theorem is too simplistic and too widely misunderstood to be of much use for characterizing systems. Therefore I ask that we retire all references to the CAP theorem, stop talking about the CAP theorem, and put the poor thing to rest. Instead, we should use more precise terminology to reason about our trade-offs.