[aphyr]

Folks on HN are often upset with the titles of Jepsen reports, so perhaps a little more context is in order. Jepsen reports are usually the product of a long collaboration with a client. Clients often have strong feelings about how the report is titled--is it too harsh on the system, or too favorable? Does it capture the most meaningful of the dozen-odd issues we found? Is it fair, in the sense that Jepsen aims to be an honest broker of database safety findings? How will it be interpreted in ten years when people link to it routinely, but the findings no longer apply to recent versions? The resulting discussions can be, ah, vigorous.

The way I've threaded this needle, after several frustrating attempts, is to have a policy of titling all reports "Jepsen: <system> <version>". HN is of course welcome to choose their own link text if they prefer a more descriptive, or colorful, phrase. :-)

[dang]

Given that author and submitter (and commenter!) are all the same person I think we can go with your choice :)

The fact that the thread is high on HN, plus the GP comment is high in the thread, plus that the audience knows how interesting Jepsen reports get, should be enough to convey the needful.

[broost3r]

long time lurker here who registered on HN many years ago after reading Jepsen: Cassandra

the Jepsen writeups will surely stand the test of time thank you!