[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009854#comment-14009854
]
Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:
-------------------------------------------
[~nrdufour], obliviously django PR initiate this issue, but I'm -1 for blindly
follow their reasons for such changes. If we're going to change technical
terminology we must provide technical explanation as reasons of such changes.
This explanation was found (in multi-master world no one is a slave and this
term doesn't fits any replication participant well), was found suddenly not
standard, but still RFC source which defines well suited alternative to slave
term for multi-master env., and was noted that "replica" word is ok for using
instead of "slave". Until we stand on CS ground and follow some common rules
and agreements it's good to clarify some bits (even if they are already looks
"fine"). But applying any historical, racial and others unrelated contexts to
technical changes which only introduces confusion between tech people is
unacceptable. At least, that's my position.
> 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)
