couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noah Slater (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-2248) Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
Date Tue, 27 May 2014 15:13:02 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009762#comment-14009762
] 

Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------

Based on this, I believe that our use of the word master is okay. We might want to replace
the single occurrence of "slave" with "replica". But other than that, the only remaining question
is whether "multi-master" is better than "master-master".

> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-2248
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: public(Regular issues) 
>          Components: Documentation
>            Reporter: Noah Slater
>            Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> 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
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message