Hi, I agree with the terms (I think we have kind of consensus).
I will start the change on ActiveMQ side (as I’m working on new releases and updates). Regards JB > Le 10 nov. 2020 à 17:26, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> a écrit : > > What about this... lets propose the following changes: > > - master should become primary (we could refer to it as primary server in > docs) > - slave should become backup (same way, we could refer to it as backup > server in docs) > - whitelist: allowlist > - blacklist: denylist > > TBH: master and slave are the most used words among the list, on both > activemq and artemis codebase. > > > I'm working with my company (Red Hat) to allow time from someone on > our team to work on this, and I believe we can set up someone > dedicated to it early 2021 on the ActiveMQ Artemis codebase. > > We still need volunteers to do it on the ActiveMQ codebase.... > > > In regard to the list of names, I am not particularly strongly > opinionated with the terms.. but if someone is, please suggest a > different term to the list. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:38 PM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2020/11/05 17:34:25, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> *My* particular issue around this was not knowing what to do with >>> configuration parameters and APIs. >>> >>> If we simply remove those, older clients, older configs would not work any >>> longer. >>> >>> Is deprecation here a valid approach? Is there consensus around it ? >> >> Yes, we definitely recommend that you have a published deprecation plan, so >> that there's sufficient warning, and you don't break existing installations. >> Exactly what that timing is, is going to vary a great deal from one project >> to another, and only you and your users can figure that out. > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
