[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009152#comment-14009152
]
Joan Touzet commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
1. We have no references to slave that describe CouchDB, only a mention in
passing with respect to other databases. We have *never* referred to any
CouchDB server in documentation or examples using the term "slave."
2. Multi-master implies *everyone* is a master. This is not racially charged
and is sex-positive. It is, in fact, empowering and supportive of equanimity
across many diverse demographics - every CouchDB is master of its own data
domain.
3. Multi-master replication is an industry term that is well recognized, enough
to have its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-master_replication We do ourselves a
disservice to stop using this term.
4. The proposed term "primary" suggests that there is a "write master," a
dangerous assertion that will give people the wrong impression about our
technology. We should be proud not to have write masters in clustered BigCouch
/ merged CouchDB architectures.
5. Replica-replica-replication sounds too redundant and does not provide the
semantic nuance that writes can be made in both replicas. It also suggests a
failover cluster model which, again, is not what CouchDB provides.
Proposal: leave everything in the repo as is. If you want to be racially
positive and loudly denounce human slavery as wrong and use our project as a
platform for that, you should instead proudly promote that CouchDB makes a
slave of no one, and empowers everyone to be the master of their data, no
matter how many replicas there are of it.
> 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)
