[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14011194#comment-14011194
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
> there is no "master/replica" known replication topology. It's was always
> named as "master-slave".
This is false. Engine Yard refers to this setup as master/replica. So do the
Django docs now. The term "database replica" has 24,100 hits in Google. I think
"replace" is a fairly easy to understand synonym for "slave". And it is my
opinion replacing "master/slave" in this instance with "master/replica" does
not hurt comprehension in any way.
Again note: this is an offhand list of examples. There's no reason we even have
to mention master/slave. We could remove it, or choose a different topology as
a replacement. But I do feel that we should remove the word "slave".
> 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)
