[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14011180#comment-14011180
]
Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:
-------------------------------------------
[~nslater], let me clarify [~rnewson] point. I'd miss it too and only realized
it too late on IRC talk after my last comment here was submitted.
Let's see on our case:
{{code}}
$ grep -iR slave share/doc/src
share/doc/src/intro/consistency.rst:multi-master, master/slave, partitioning,
sharding, write-through caches,
{{code}
This line is describes replication _topologies_ and use cases of CouchDB
replication work. Note the key word _topology_ - so is _master/slave_ one. In
fact, if some where in text was standalone word "slave", it could be replaced
by "replica" or rephrased with keep original meaning and clearance for tech
community. However, in our case we couldn't replace it with "replica" by simple
reason: there is no "master/replica" known replication _topology_. It's was
always named as "master-slave".
The only thing we could do here is to take a look on LDAP Replication Protocol
RFC again and pick "single-master" term which describes "master/slave" case:
{quote}
Master-Slave, or Single Master Replication - A replication model that
assumes only one server, the master, allows LDAP write access to the
replicated data. Note that Master-Slave replication can be
considered a proper subset of multi-master replication.
{quote}
However, this workaround doesn't gives us the right to replace "master/slave"
by "master/replica" since we're bring only confusion and information loss with
this change.
If everyone is fine with "single-master" as a replacement of "master/slave"
term - let's stop on that. Otherwise, we have to not change anything.
> 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)
