[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14010055#comment-14010055
]
Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:
-------------------------------------------
"master/backup" is bad pair since "backup" explicitly defines functionality of
the replicant. Also, in CouchDB replication the replicant may not being used
for backup proposes and even not represent full copy of the master.
Btw. see also [RFC3384 | http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3384] which defines some
terms like "Master Replica", "Multi-Master Replication", "One-way Replication",
"Replica" and "Slave Replica". While I also feels "not comfortable" with
terminology changes, I think we could share and adopt this RFC terminology
(with definition in glossary, for sure).
> 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)
