[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14012860#comment-14012860
]
Morj Lomakin commented on COUCHDB-2248:
---------------------------------------
While avoiding controversial terminology might be good for the project as an
easy solution (just to distantiate from it), I don't think it is a right path
for the publicly available software industry at general. Avoiding taboo words
will not change history, as well as the meaning of them. OTOH, using
master-slave exclusively as a database replication terminology will eventually
wash out other (negative) meanings. And 'slave' will just mean "passive data
replication unit", or something like that. Hydraulic and pneumatic systems or
railway locomotives will bring even more technology-related meaning to this
word. Why not take this path? What are the chances to completely remove a word
from the language against just erasing offending meanings over time?
> 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
> Assignee: Alexander Shorin
> 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)
