couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noah Slater (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-2248) Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
Date Tue, 27 May 2014 00:50:01 GMT


Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:

On IRC, I said to Joan that I can see her argument that using "master" everywhere is empowering.
And also that I like your multi-master approach. But does it solve the "write masters are
a valid concept for CouchDB" problem?

You could say that it's saying "Nope! Your entire system is multi-master! There are no singular
masters!" But I think that we'll have to review the text, because I suspect that "master-master"
or "multi-master" is only used in contexts where we're talking about specific arrangements
of peers. In that context, I think the meaning actually backfires, implying the inverse is
also valid.

> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>                 Key: COUCHDB-2248
>                 URL:
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: public(Regular issues) 
>          Components: Documentation
>            Reporter: Noah Slater
>            Priority: Trivial
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be good to
avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also have to deal with what
we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to peer" as a replacement, or just "peer"
if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any supporting
material can be updated after.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message