[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009178#comment-14009178
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
Interesting comment from the Django thread:
"The County of Los Angeles apparently mandated this change over a decade ago."
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/11/26/master.term.reut/
Reading the article, I think "mandated" is the wrong word. They don't offer any
replacement terms, but they do say that the terms "could be interpreted as
discriminatory or offensive in nature."
"I do understand that this term has been an industry standard for years and
years and this is nothing more than a plea to vendors to see what they can do."
> 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)
