[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009167#comment-14009167
]
Joan Touzet commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
I think you underestimate the damage and confusion that changing master-master
to "peer-to-peer" replication would lead to. It inaccurately conflates the
"plumbing" of replication, i.e. the underlying network mechanism, with the
"logic" of replication, i.e. whether changes can come from one or both sides
during a replication process.
Remember that "peer-to-peer" networking apps are banned at most corporate
institutions. It suggests a specific architecture that is required to make
replication work, that is not at all necessary for CouchDB.
In Futon and Fauxton we talk about source and target already. Surely this is
sufficient!
> 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)
