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 Wed, 28 May 2014 15:16:02 GMT


Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:

[~nslater], let me clarify [~rnewson] point. I'd miss it too and only realized it too late
on IRC talk after my last comment here was submitted. 

Let's see on our case:
$ grep -iR slave share/doc/src
share/doc/src/intro/consistency.rst:multi-master, master/slave, partitioning, sharding, write-through

This line is describes replication _topologies_ and use cases of CouchDB replication work.
Note the key word _topology_ - so is _master/slave_ one. In fact, if some where in text was
standalone word "slave", it could be replaced by "replica" or rephrased with keep original
meaning and clearance for tech community. However, in our case we couldn't replace it with
"replica" by simple reason: there is no "master/replica" known replication _topology_. It's
was always named as "master-slave". 

The only thing we could do here is to take a look on LDAP Replication Protocol RFC again and
pick "single-master" term which describes "master/slave" case:

Master-Slave, or Single Master Replication - A replication model that
   assumes only one server, the master, allows LDAP write access to the
   replicated data.  Note that Master-Slave replication can be
   considered a proper subset of multi-master replication.

However, this workaround doesn't gives us the right to replace "master/slave" by "master/replica"
since we're bring only confusion and information loss with this change.

If everyone is fine with "single-master" as a replacement of "master/slave" term - let's stop
on that. Otherwise, we have to not change anything.

> 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