[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14011251#comment-14011251
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
Yup, sorry, what I meant was "database replica" as a concept is understood. So
master/replica should be understood also, as being a combination of a master
database and a replica database.
To address your concerns:
1. "master/slave" also clashes with "Master Slave" so this seems moot
2. Not sure what this means? A master/replica setup would be one master with n
replicas, so the master is the authority source
3. This is true, and a good point. This will change soon with Django's doc
changes. I'd also point out that "NoSQL" didn't have any hits in Google before
CouchDB existed! (i.e. Everything is changeable.)
Alternatives to "master/replica":
1. Nothing, remove it entirely
2. "read-only replicas"
3. "read replicas"
4. "Single-master setups"
Here's what the sentence would look like in each case:
1. "You could use multi-master, partitioning, sharding, write-through caches,
and all sorts of other complex techniques."
2. "You could use multi-master, read-only replicas, partitioning, sharding,
write-through caches, and all sorts of other complex techniques."
3. "You could use multi-master, read replicas, partitioning, sharding,
write-through caches, and all sorts of other complex techniques."
4. "You could use multi-master, single-master, partitioning, sharding,
write-through caches, and all sorts of other complex techniques."
I think I prefer option 5.
> 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)
