[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009583#comment-14009583
]
Nicolas Dufour commented on COUCHDB-2248:
-----------------------------------------
Not stocking anything presently. Master and slave have obviously lots of
historic meanings, but to banish those words just for that purpose is clearly
silly and going to introduce confusion. You need to use the right word for the
right intent. Now it's true that CouchDB is master-master to begin with and
peer-to-peer is clearly more appropriate. But removing master-slave notion in
the pretense it might offend somebody is just wrong.
So to make a long story short: if want to push the notion of peer-to-peer, then
fine +1, if you want to solely remove master-slave notion because it might
offend someone then -1.
> 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)
