[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14010033#comment-14010033
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
The remaining question is: what do we change that one "master/slave" reference
too. I had thought we all agreed on "replica" after Sean made the case for it.
But I [~rnewson] told me on IRC that he is against the term.
Bob, how strongly do you feel about this? What alternatives would you suggest?
I think you mentioned "master/backup", which seems to be inline with sense (I)
of master. Though I guess it depends what you're using the secondary node for.
If you're using it as a read replica, then I don't think backup fits. Replica
seems like a good fit for the use cases I can think of, and seems to be the
alternative word that other people (in the industry) favour.
> 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)
