Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16EAE18266 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41738 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2015 11:50:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 41668 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2015 11:50:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@mesos.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 41658 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2015 11:50:08 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:50:08 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of alex@mesosphere.io designates 209.85.215.72 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.72] (HELO mail-la0-f72.google.com) (209.85.215.72) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:47:54 +0000 Received: by labc7 with SMTP id c7so34939764lab.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 04:49:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=MIdmd1hcWMFZ0ggP6wRLPbx3ZiNUrSk7xTmqRgJnaX0=; b=JFoCsH61Flcogqo+fQ4g158KMa8haM8/3teoG4G8odBTbVoYf+FP4tj9Q5RWs1n9JF OZc+JjV5W/qRUo7yKrBGB7EncHSnDZgdtcOdOu5p24QiwkbfICnZQtnjv85381mSNY39 Qzr1PFMOPV8vUQd3QeXbX7FICt9LiKSkFom24h3wZgzEw1uUeQlejLgwQdTisbpmi1QC fItwnhKAGhwO15p2t6JIsge8w+b7F9Y1/78MrCfUGGvxY9VWWQB+xFH1D5UQQCZc66aq z4ynBx3CH6Fh5wdDHSM6i0WDbj1z/o+3kIRSRwePtzrvArj0HvxtPdZUrFCMMHdJFE6q MsTw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvMd02+W7YWeIlvWBvGqR0qOxPOXbxWnGgLnYwf+KRr6hRh1/+BXDuf1uLdquRFyV+KNAR MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.94.168 with SMTP id dd8mr20943237wib.76.1433764181002; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 04:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.9.194 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 04:49:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6F26503B67E25B4599CEDE7E1304D0CC3DFD09BE@mailbox12.lucas.alllucas.com> References: <53CC5F9B-EF0A-4930-AE9F-752A7DA66822@mesosphere.io> <0089E76C-4662-4F4D-9D3C-FE1787152E4B@me.com> <55707870.2070401@malloc64.com> <4BD535E8DAC39743B02BA2FD90CF90F5771042FC@SZXEMA501-MBX.china.huawei.com> <5571AECC.9010200@tampabay.rr.com> <6F26503B67E25B4599CEDE7E1304D0CC3DFD09BE@mailbox12.lucas.alllucas.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:49:40 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOetlOWkjTogW0RJU0NVU1NdIFJlbmFtaW5nIE1lc29zIFNsYXZl?= From: Alex Rukletsov To: user@mesos.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04448167b360370518003ca5 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d04448167b360370518003ca5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I'm apathetic to changing the name, I think we should do more than just voting on an alternate name in case we decide to proceed and replace the master/slave terminology. Such change is very expensive and it makes sense to do it once than to rush and pick up an ambiguous term. If we make this step, we can use it as an opportunity to choose a *better* name for key Mesos components. My suggestion is to add pros and cons to every name put in for voting. Let's back up each proposal with meaningful explanation why this proposal should be preferred over others. I'll give an example (I will stick to the current terminology for clarity): * -1 for 'worker' as it implies the slave process does the actual work, which is not true and misleading. * -1 for 'leader/follower' as mesos slaves do not really *follow* the mesos master; can be confused with leading/shadowing master(s). * +1 for disambiguating between mesos slave process and mesos slave node: fwiw, multiple slave processes can be running on the same node. Some time ago we had an offline discussion about whether master and slave should actually be different entities. Having a single entity, say, mesos-agent, that can act either as slave or as master can be beneficial. Though this is outside of the scope of the current thread, I would like to keep it in mind and be as general as possible while choosing the name. Hence, my favourites so far are: 1. Mesos Node [can be disambiguated as Mesos Master Node or Mesos Agent Node] 2. Mesos Agent 3. No [Mesos Master can mean a particular mode in which a Mesos Agent currently operates] 4. Start using it in presentations, JIRAs, mailing lists, then proceed to docs update; change code via deprecation process once new terminology is settled. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Aaron Carey wrote: > I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of > parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine > this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in > this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which > suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los > Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words > used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds= , > from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to > stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It > works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new > words and the cycle repeats. > > I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to > change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the > community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sur= e > you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future a= nd > require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting > for: > > +1 Gru/Minion > > There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to > describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it > assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd sugges= t > that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of > domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get ri= d > of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes > in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work > distribution and so on? > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com] > *Sent:* 06 June 2015 04:34 > *To:* user@mesos.apache.org > *Subject:* RE: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave > > +1 master/slave =E2=80=93 no need to change > > > > *From:* Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM > *To:* user@mesos.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave > > > > Master/Minion +1 > > > > On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT 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 separatel= y > 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 > wrote: > > +1 for keeping master/slave. > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal) > > wrote: > > +1 master/slave. ____ > > __ __ > > These are only terminologies in software architecture. They > have different definitions from those of social or political > view. ____ > > __ __ > > *=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmai= l.com > ] > *=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4:*2015=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=885= =E6=97=A510:40 > *=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:*user@mesos.apache.org > *=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____ > > __ __ > > +1 master/slave, no change needed.____ > > __ __ > > 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan >:____ > > -----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/system= s > > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste > of > > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who hav= e > > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stag= es > > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave > > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were th= e > > case ;) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jim > > > > > > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren G=C3=BCven > > >> > wrote: > > > > +1 master/slave, no change needed > > > > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Als= o > > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgra= de > > pains. > > > > Cheers > > > > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao 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 > > 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 meanin= g > > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and > > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technica= l > > jargon and have no social implications within such context. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff > > >> 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 "officia= l" > >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first > >> step. > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 585.241.9488 > > (voice) > >650.649.6071 > (fax) > > > > > > > > > > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)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= =3D > =3DniNh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____ > > __ __ > > > > > -- > Emilien Kenler > Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS > + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website |Twitter > |Facebook > |LinkedIn > > > > > > --f46d04448167b360370518003ca5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While I'm= apathetic to changing the name, I think we should do more than just voting= on an alternate name in case we decide to proceed and replace the master/s= lave terminology. Such change is very expensive and it makes sense to do it= once than to rush and pick up an ambiguous term. If we make this step, we = can use it as an opportunity to choose a better name for key Mesos c= omponents.

=
My suggestio= n is to add pros and cons to every name put in for voting. Let's back u= p each proposal with meaningful explanation why this proposal should be pre= ferred over others. I'll give an example (I will stick to the current t= erminology for clarity):
* -1 for 'worker' as it implies the slave process does = the actual work, which is not true and misleading.
* -1 for 'leader/follower' as= mesos slaves do not really follow the mesos master; can be confused= with leading/shadowing master(s).
* +1 for disambiguating between mesos slave process a= nd mesos slave node: fwiw, multiple slave processes can be running on the s= ame node.
Some time a= go we had an offline discussion about whether master and slave should actua= lly be different entities. Having a single entity, say, mesos-agent, that c= an act either as slave or as master can be beneficial. Though this is outsi= de of the scope of the current thread, I would like to keep it in mind and = be as general as possible while choosing the name.

Hence, my favourites so far are:
=
1. Mesos Node [can be dis= ambiguated as Mesos Master Node or Mesos Agent Node]
2. = Mesos Agent
3. No [Mesos Master can mean a particular mo= de in which a Mesos Agent currently operates]
4. Start u= sing it in presentations, JIRAs, mailing lists, then proceed to docs update= ; change code via deprecation process once new terminology is settled.


On Mon,= Jun 8, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Aaron Carey <acarey@ilm.com> wrote:
I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of para= llels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine this = happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in this thread James pointed me to an intere= sted Wikipedia article which suggested this also happens occasionally in so= ftware: eg County of Los Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are tol= d to change the words used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds, from underprivil= eged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to stop other childre= n from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It works for a while and = then the pupils catch on and start using the new words and the cycle repeats.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to c= hange the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the co= mmunity have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure yo= u choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and require the whole renaming process to r= un again. Which is why I'm voting for:

+1 Gru/Minion

There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to descr= ibe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it assigns = work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest that= whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really nee= ded here is to get rid of the concept of a master altogether and re-archite= ct mesos so all nodes in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus togeth= er about work distribution and so on?


From: Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
Sent: 06 June 2015 04:34
To: user@= mesos.apache.org
Subject: RE: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

+1 master/slave =E2=80=93= no need to change

=C2=A0

From: Sam Sali= sbury [mailto:s= amsalisbury@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
To: user@= mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

=C2=A0

Master/Minion +1

=C2=A0

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


"+1 master/slave, no change needed."=C2=A0 is the same as
"master/slave"=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I.E. keep the nomenclature as it curr= ently 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 consensu= s
on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately = on each name? On an=C2=A0 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 fa= r
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" vo= te 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 s= ame)?_
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<= br> 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:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 +1 for keeping master/slave.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <panyungao@huawei.com <mailto:panyungao@huawei.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 +1=C2=A0 master/slave. ____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __ __

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 These are only terminologies in software archit= ecture.=C2=A0 They
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 have different definitions from those of social= or political
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 view. ____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __ __

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=E5=8F=91= =E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com>]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=E5=8F=91= =E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4:*2015=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=885= =E6=97=A510:40
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA:*user@mesos.apache.org <mailto:user@mesos.apache.org><= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98:*R= e: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __ __

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 +1 master/slave, no change needed.____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __ __

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:ankur@malloc64.com>>:____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hash: SHA1

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 +1 master/slave

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 James made some very good points and there is n= o technical
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 reason for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 wasting time on this.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy= request; master/slave is a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > well understood common convention (if it i= sn't well defined). This
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > is making an issue out of something that i= sn't. Not at least as far
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > as I see it - I don't have a habit of = confusing software/systems
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > nomenclature with moral high ground. This = would just be a waste of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > time and not just for developers but for t= hose adopting/who have
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new proj= ect at the early stages
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > of just throwing ideas around, then fine -= call master/slave
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my= vote if that were the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > case ;)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Cheers,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Jim
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren G=C3=BCven &= lt;erenguven0@gma= il.com <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com>&= gt;> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > +1 master/slave, no change needed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Such a change is a waste of time with no t= echnical benefit. Also
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like = this will cause upgrade
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > pains.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Cheers
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com &l= t;mailto:xiaods@gmail= .com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com>>> wrote: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > +1 to James DeFelice.=C2=A0 I don't fe= el the name is confuse for any
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > circumstance.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice = <james.def= elice@gmail.com <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:james.defelice@gm= ail.com>>>:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader= /follower
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > +1 master/slave; no change needed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > There's no technical benefit **at all*= * to a terminology change at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > this point. If people want to change the n= ames in their client
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > presentations that's fine. Master/slav= e conveys specific meaning
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > that is lost otherwise. In this context of= this project (and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) t= he terms are technical
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > jargon and have no social implications wit= hin such context.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toens= hoff <toenshoff@me= .com <mailto:t= oenshoff@me.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <mailto:toenshoff@me.com>>> wrote: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2.= Mesos Worker [process] 3.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> No, master/worker seems to address the= issue with less changes.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add = a disambiguation to the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> docs, and change old references over t= ime. Fixing the "official"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> name, even before changes are in place= , would be a good first
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> step.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > +1
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xia= ods(AT)gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <http://gmail.com>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light &am= p; Magic
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bA= s5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBI= Y4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLV= XXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvw= bg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3= xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8Q= BikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=3D
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =3DniNh
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 __ __




=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http= ://www.wizcorp.jp/>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Emilien Kenler
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -------------------------------------------------------------= -----------
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>

=C2=A0

=C2=A0


--f46d04448167b360370518003ca5--