[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009594#comment-14009594
]
Robert Newson commented on COUCHDB-2248:
----------------------------------------
I agree with you but I'm not dismissing the sincerely held opinions of others
either. I have already vetoed the notion of banishing the terms "master" and
"slave" and I'm not persuaded to remove it.
The earlier suggestion to use 'replica' instead of slave is misguided. Both the
'master' and 'slave' are replicas (it would not be an error to talk of a
"master replica" and a "slave replica" in my opinion).
It was useful to raise the topic for discussion but I hope it's now clear that
there's no consensus that these terms are as charged as originally claimed.
There are many important battles to fight and much consciousness raising to be
advocated for. This seems a very weak example of either.
If Noah will refine the ticket to cover a proposed documentation change, I'm
sure we'll all be happy to review it on its merits and not dwell so ponderously
on the motivation.
> 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)
