couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexander Shorin (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-2248) Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
Date Tue, 27 May 2014 18:26:04 GMT


Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:

"master/backup" is bad pair since "backup" explicitly defines functionality of the replicant.
Also, in CouchDB replication the replicant may not being used for backup proposes and even
not represent full copy of the master.

Btw. see also [RFC3384 |] which defines some terms like
"Master Replica", "Multi-Master Replication", "One-way Replication", "Replica" and "Slave
Replica". While I also feels "not comfortable" with terminology changes, I think we could
share and adopt this RFC terminology (with definition in glossary, for sure).

> 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