mesos-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Salisbury <samsalisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Date Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:31:11 GMT
Master/Minion +1

On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <ccaat@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>
> "+1 master/slave, no change needed."  is the same as
> "master/slave"    I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>
> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>
>
> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>
> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately
> on each name? On an  real ballot, you enter the choices,
> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
> is ridiculous.
>
> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
> voting preference:
>
> ---------------->
> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>
> [] Master-Slave
> [] Mesos-Slave
> [] Mesos-Minion
> [] Master-Minion
> [] Master-Follower
> [] Mesos-Follower
> [] Master-worker
> [] Mesos-worker
> [] etc etc
>
> <-----------------
>
>
> Tally the result and go from there.
> James
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so
>> far.
>>
>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>
>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>> Worker: +10, -2
>> Agent: +6
>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>> Minion: +2, -1
>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>
>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>
>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>> Follower/Leader)
>>
>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>
>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>
>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>
>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>> votes and no negative ones.
>>
>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>> <mailto:ekenler@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>
>>     +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>
>>     On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>>     <panyungao@huawei.com <mailto:panyungao@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         +1  master/slave. ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         These are only terminologies in software architecture.  They
>>         have different definitions from those of social or political
>>         view. ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com>]
>>         *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>>         *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <mailto:user@mesos.apache.org>
>>         *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>>         <mailto:ankur@malloc64.com>>:____
>>
>>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>         Hash: SHA1
>>
>>         +1 master/slave
>>
>>         James made some very good points and there is no technical
>>         reason for
>>         wasting time on this.
>>
>>         On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>>         > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>         >
>>         > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is
>> a
>>         > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined).
>> This
>>         > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as
>> far
>>         > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>>         > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste
>> of
>>         > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>>         > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early
>> stages
>>         > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>>         > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>>         > case ;)
>>         >
>>         > Cheers,
>>         >
>>         > Jim
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>> <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com>
>>         > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>>         >
>>         > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>>         > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause
>> upgrade
>>         > pains.
>>         >
>>         > Cheers
>>         >
>>         > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:
>> xiaods@gmail.com>
>>         > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>         >
>>         > +1 to James DeFelice.  I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>>         > circumstance.
>>         >
>>         > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <
>> james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com>
>>         > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:
>> james.defelice@gmail.com>>>:
>>         >
>>         > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>>         >
>>         > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>         >
>>         > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change
>> at
>>         > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>>         > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>>         > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>>         > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>>         > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <
>> toenshoff@me.com <mailto:toenshoff@me.com>
>>         > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <mailto:toenshoff@me.com>>>
wrote:
>>         >
>>         >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>> 3.
>>         >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>>         >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>>         >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the
>> "official"
>>         >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>>         >> step.
>>         >
>>         > +1
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:
>> 585.241.9488
>>         <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>>         >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>>         <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <
>> http://gmail.com>
>>         > <http://gmail.com>
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>         iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>>         tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>>         sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>>         afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>>         ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>>         cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>>         =niNh
>>         -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>    Emilien Kenler
>>     Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>>     + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>>     <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>>     <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>>     <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message