Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original 3 JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing an initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate in 3 and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that change.
If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity. On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Circling back after more inputs, if we use this as a description of the > proposals: > > 1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with ???, this one has by far the most > significant impact and both opinion and interpretation on this one is > mixed. > > 2. Replace "slave" with "follower", seems to impact the cross cluster > replication subsystem only. > > 3. Replace "black list" with "deny list". > > 4. Replace "white list" with "accept list". > > Then by my read of the responses we have consensus to do #2, #3, and #4. > They were not controversial. JIRAs and patches will be welcome. Seems > pretty clear committers and PMC will approve and do what is needed to > complete any necessary deprecation cycle. > > Regarding #1, opinion is mixed. By my read I also think committers and PMC > will approve patches and do what is needed to complete any necessary > deprecation cycle for this one too. Enough PMC members expressed support to > successfully vote on a release (although not if there were to be opposing > votes). If a contributor were to open a JIRA and provide patches for this, > there would be more discussion. There is no consensus, yet, on what > replacement term is best. Personally, I can accept Zheng's recent > suggestion of "controller". I can see how syllable count matters. > > I don't mean this summary to close the conversation. It is only a > checkpoint. > > If anyone reading this has an opinion they do not wish to express > publically, you are welcome to write to [email protected] to state > your opinion and the PMC will of course respectfully listen to it. > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:47 PM zheng wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the controller. > > > > > > Coordinator is a bit long for me to write and speak. > > Manager and Admin is used somewhere yet in HBase. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ > > 发件人: "Andrew Purtell"<[email protected]>; > > 发送时间: 2020年6月26日(星期五) 上午9:08 > > 收件人: "Hbase-User"<[email protected]>; > > 抄送: "dev"<[email protected]>; > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project > > > > > > > > > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it). > > > > Oooooh... I like AdminServer. AdminServer (serving admin functions) and > > RegionServer (serving region data). > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:46 PM Andrey Elenskiy > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" that > > is clear > > > and > > > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community? > > > > > > There are also: > > > - captain (sounds pretty close to "master" without the negative side > > and it > > > should be relatable around the world) > > > - conductor (as in orchestra) > > > - controller (in kafka controller assigns partitions) > > > - RegionDriver (more relevant to what it's actually doing in hbase > and > > > borrowed from PlacementDrive of TiKV) > > > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it). > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > How about "manager"? > > > > > > > > (It would help me if folks could explain what is lacking in > > > "coordinator".) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 13:32 Nick Dimiduk <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > -0/+1/+1/+1 > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m the one who asked whether ‘master’ is safe to use > > without ‘slave’ > > > > in > > > > > > the private list. > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m still not convinced that it is really necessary > > and I do not > > > think > > > > > > other words like ‘coordinator’ can fully describe the > > role of HMaster > > > > in > > > > > > HBase. HBase is more than 10 years old. In the > context > > of HBase, the > > > > word > > > > > > ‘HMaster’ has its own meaning. Changing the name will > > hurt our users > > > > and > > > > > > make them confusing, especially for us non native > > English speakers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" > > that is clear > > > > and > > > > > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community? > > > > > > > > > > Stack <[email protected]>于2020年6月25日 周四06:34写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1/+1/+1/+1 where hbase3 adds the deprecation > and > > hbase4 follows > > > > hbase3 > > > > > > > soon after sounds good to me. I'm up for working > > on this. > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM Xu Cang < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly agree with what Nick said here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " From my perspective, we gain > nothing > > as a project or as a > > > > > community > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > willfully retaining use of language that is > > well understood to be > > > > > > > > problematic or hurtful,.... On the > contrary, > > we have much to gain > > > > by > > > > > > > > encouraging > > > > > > > > contributions from as many people as > > possible." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to Andrew's proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It might be good to have a source of truth > > web page or README > > > file > > > > > for > > > > > > > > developers and users to refer to regarding > > all naming > > > transitions. > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > going to help both developers changing the > > code and users looking > > > > for > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > answers online that use old namings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM Nick > Dimiduk > > < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean > > Busbey <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to make sure I am > > emphatically clear that > > > "master" > > > > > by > > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > > > > is not okay if the context is the > > same as what would normally > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > master/slave context. Furthermore > > our use of master is > > > clearly > > > > > > such a > > > > > > > > > > context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree: to me “Master”, as in > > “HMaster” caries with it the > > > > > > > master/slave > > > > > > > > > baggage. As an alternative, I prefer > > the term “coordinator” > > > over > > > > > > > > “leader”. > > > > > > > > > Thus we would have daemons called > > “coordinator” and “region > > > > > server”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, “master” as in “master branch” > > does not carry the same > > > > > > baggage, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > I’m also in favor changing the name of > > our default branch to a > > > > word > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > less conflicted. I see nothing that we > > gain as a community by > > > > > > > continuing > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > use this word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me we have, broadly > > speaking, consensus around > > > making > > > > > > > *some* > > > > > > > > > > changes. I haven't seen a strong > > push for "break everything > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > expediency" (I would personally > be > > fine with this). So > > > barring > > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > > > discussion that favors breaking > > changes, current approaches > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > comport > > > > > > > > > > with our existing project > > compatibility goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we could stop talking about > > what-ifs and look at actual > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > > examples? If anyone is currently > > up for doing the work of a > > > PR > > > > we > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > look > > > > > > > > > > at for one of these? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If folks would prefer we e.g. > just > > say "we should break > > > > whatever > > > > > we > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > in 3.0.0 to make this happen" > then > > it would be good to speak > > > > up. > > > > > > > > > Otherwise > > > > > > > > > > likely we would be done with > > needed changes circa hbase 4, > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > late > > > > > > > > > > 2021 or 2022. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 03:03 zheng > > wang <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, master is ok if not > used > > with slave together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -1/+1/+1/+1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------&nbsp;原始邮件&nbsp;------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > 发件人:&nbsp;"Andrew > > Purtell"<[email protected]&gt;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > 发送时间:&nbsp;2020年6月23日(星期二) 凌晨5:24 > > > > > > > > > > > 收件人:&nbsp;"Hbase-User"< > > [email protected]&gt;; > > > > > > > > > > > 抄送:&nbsp;"dev"< > > [email protected]&gt;; > > > > > > > > > > > 主题:&nbsp;Re: [DISCUSS] > > Removing problematic terms from our > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In observing something like > > voting happening on this thread > > > > to > > > > > > > > express > > > > > > > > > > > alignment or not, it might > be > > helpful to first, come up > > > with > > > > a > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > terms to change (if any), > and > > then propose replacements, > > > > > > > > individually. > > > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > > > > > far we might break this > apart > > into four proposals: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Replace > "master"/"hmaster" > > with ??? ("coordinator" is > > > one > > > > > > > option), > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > one has by far the most > > significant impact and both opinion > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation on this one > is > > mixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Replace "slave" with > > "follower", seems to impact the > > > cross > > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > > > replication subsystem only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Replace "black list" with > > "deny list". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Replace "white list" with > > "accept list". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps if you are inclined > > to respond with a +1/-1/+0/-0, > > > it > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > useful to give such an > > indication for each line item above. > > > > Or, > > > > > > > offer > > > > > > > > > > > alternative proposals. Or, > if > > you have a singular opinion, > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:09 > > PM Geoffrey Jacoby < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; For most of the > > proposals (slave -&gt; worker, > > > blacklist > > > > > > -&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > denylist, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; whitelist-&gt; > > allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding). > > > Denylist > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > acceptlist even > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; have the advantage > > of being clearer than the terms > > > > they're > > > > > > > > > > replacing. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; However, I'm not > > convinced about changing "master" to > > > > > > > > > "coordinator", > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; something similar. > > Unlike "slave", which is negative > > > in > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > context, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; "master" has many > > definitions, including some common > > > > ones > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; appear problematic. > > See > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>>; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt < > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>>>; > >; > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; examples. In > > particular, the progression of an artisan > > > > was > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; "apprentice" to > > "journeyman" to "master". A master > > > > smith, > > > > > > > > > carpenter, > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; artist would run a > > shop managing lots of workers and > > > > > > > apprentices > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; hope to become > > masters of their own someday. So > > > "master" > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > "worker" > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; still go together. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Since it's the > least > > problematic term, and by far the > > > > > > hardest > > > > > > > > term > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; change (both within > > HBase and with effects on > > > downstream > > > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > > such as > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Ambari), I'm -0 > > (nonbinding) on changing "master". > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Geoffrey > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, > 2020 > > at 1:32 PM Rushabh Shah > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; < > > [email protected]&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; +1 to > > renaming. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; Rushabh > Shah > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Software Engineering SMTS | > > > > > > > Salesforce > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - > > Mobile: 213 > > > > 422 > > > > > > > 9052 > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; On Mon, > Jun > > 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser < > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > On > > 6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; We should change our use of these > > > terms. > > > > We > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > equally or more > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; clear > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > in > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; what we are trying to convey where they > > > > are > > > > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; That they have been used historically > > > is > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > if the advantage > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; we > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; gain from using them through that > > > shared > > > > > > > context > > > > > > > > > > > outweighs the > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; potential > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; friction they add. They make me > > > > personally > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > > > enthusiastic about > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; contributing. That's enough friction > > > for > > > > me > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > advocate removing > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; them. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; AFAICT reworking our replication stuff > > > in > > > > > > terms > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > "active" and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; "passive" > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; clusters did not result in a big spike > > > of > > > > > > folks > > > > > > > > > > asking > > > > > > > > > > > new questions > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > about > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; where authority for state was. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew > > > > Purtell > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; In response to renewed attention at > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > toward addressing > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; culturally problematic language and > > > > > terms > > > > > > > > often > > > > > > > > > > > used in technical > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; documentation and discussion, > > > several > > > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > > have begun > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; discussions, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > or > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; made proposals, or started work > > > along > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > lines. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; The HBase PMC began its own > > > > discussion > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > private@ > > > > > > > > > > > on June 9, 2020 > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > with an > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; observation of this activity and > > > this > > > > > > > > > suggestion: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; There is a renewed push back > > > against > > > > > > > classic > > > > > > > > > > > technology industry > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; terms > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > that > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; have negative modern connotations. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; In the case of HBase, the following > > > > > > > > > substitutions > > > > > > > > > > > might be proposed: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; - Coordinator instead of master > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; - Worker instead of slave > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Recommendations for these > > > additional > > > > > > > > > > substitutions > > > > > > > > > > > also come up in > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; this > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; type of discussion: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; - Accept list instead of white list > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; - Deny list instead of black list > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Unfortunately we have Master all > > > over > > > > > our > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > > base, baked into > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; various > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; APIs and configuration variable > > > > names, > > > > > so > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > > > the necessary > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; changes > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; amount to a new major release and > > > > > > > deprecation > > > > > > > > > > > cycle. It could well > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; be > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > worth > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; it in the long run. We exist only > > > as > > > > > long > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > draw a willing and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; sufficient contributor community. > > > It > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > wouldn’t > > > > > > > > > > > be great to have > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; an > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; activist fork appear somewhere, > > > even > > > > if > > > > > > > > > unlikely > > > > > > > > > > > to be successful. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Relevant JIRAs are: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - > > > > HBASE-12677 < > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>>; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Update > > > > > > replication > > > > > > > > docs > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > clarify terminology > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - > > > > HBASE-13852 < > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>>; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Replace > > > > > > > master-slave > > > > > > > > > > > terminology in book, site, > > and javadoc > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; with a > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > more > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; modern > > > > > vocabulary > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - > > > > HBASE-24576 < > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>>; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Changing > > > > > > > "whitelist" > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > "blacklist" in our docs and > > project > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; In response to this proposal, a > > > > member > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > PMC > > > > > > > > > > > asked if the term > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; 'master' used by itself would be > > > > fine, > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > only have use of > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > 'slave' > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; in replication documentation and > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > > > easily > > > > > > > > > > > addressed. In > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; response > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > to > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; this question, others on the PMC > > > > > > suggested > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > even if only > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; 'master' > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; used, in this context it is still a > > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; For folks who are surprised or > > > > lacking > > > > > > > > context > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the details of > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; this > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; discussion, one PMC member offered > > > a > > > > > link > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > draft RFC as > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > background: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html> > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; There was general support for > > > > removing > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > term > > > > > > > > > > > "master" / "hmaster" > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > from > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; our code base and using the terms > > > > > > > > "coordinator" > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > "leader" instead. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; In > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > the > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; context of replication, "worker" > > > > makes > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > > > > > and perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > "destination" > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; or "follower" would be more > > > > appropriate > > > > > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; One PMC member's thoughts on > > > language > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > non-native English > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; speakers > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; worth including in its entirety: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; While words like > > > > > > blacklist/whitelist/slave > > > > > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > > have those > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; negative > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; references, word master might not > > > > have > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > impact for non > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; native > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; English speakers like myself where > > > > the > > > > > > > > literal > > > > > > > > > > > translation to my > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; mother > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; tongue does not have this same bad > > > > > > > > connotation. > > > > > > > > > > > Replacing all > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; references > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; for word *master *on our > > > > docs/codebase > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > huge > > > > > > > > > > > effort, I guess > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; such > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; a > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; decision would be more suitable for > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > English > > > > > > > > > > > speakers folks, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; maybe we should consider the > > > opinion > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > contributors from that > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; ethinic > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; minority as well? > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; These are good questions for public > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; We have a consensus in the PMC, at > > > > this > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > is supportive of > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > making > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; the above discussed terminology > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > > we also have > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; concerns > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; about what it would take to > > > > accomplish > > > > > > > > > meaningful > > > > > > > > > > > changes. Several > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; on > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > the > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; PMC offered support in the form of > > > > > cycles > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > review pull requests > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; patches, and two PMC members > > > > > > offered&nbsp; > > > > > > > > > > > personal bandwidth for > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; creating > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; releasing new code lines as needed > > > to > > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Unfortunately, the terms "master" > > > and > > > > > > > > "hmaster" > > > > > > > > > > > appear throughout > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; our > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > code > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; base in class names, user facing > > > API > > > > > > > subject > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > our project > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > compatibility > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; guidelines, and configuration > > > > variable > > > > > > > names, > > > > > > > > > > > which are also > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; implicated > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > by > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; compatibility guidelines given the > > > > > impact > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > changes to operators > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; operations. The changes being > > > > discussed > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > backwards compatible > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; changes and cannot be executed with > > > > > > > swiftness > > > > > > > > > > > while simultaneously > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; preserving compatibility. There > > > must > > > > > be a > > > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle. First, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; we > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > must > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; tag all implicated public API and > > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > > > variables as > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > deprecated, > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; and release HBase 3 with these > > > > > > deprecations > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > place. Then, we must > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; undertake rename and removal as > > > > > > > appropriate, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > release the result > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; as > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; HBase 4. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; One PMC member raised a question in > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > context > > > > > > > > > > > included here in > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > entirety: > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Are we willing to commit to rolling > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > major versions at a > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; pace > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; that's necessary to make this > > > > > transition > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > swift > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; reasonably possible? > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; This is a question for all of us. > > > For > > > > > the > > > > > > > > PMC, > > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > would supervise > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; the > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; effort, perhaps contribute to it, > > > and > > > > > > > > certainly > > > > > > > > > > > vote on the release > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; candidates. For contributors and > > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > > > > contributors, who would > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; the necessary patches. For > > > > committers, > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > be required to > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; review > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > and > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; commit the relevant changes. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; Although there has been some > > > initial > > > > > > > > > discussion, > > > > > > > > > > > there is no > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; singular > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; proposal, or plan, or set of > > > > decisions > > > > > > made > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > this time. Wrestling > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; with > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; this concern and the competing > > > > concerns > > > > > > > > > involved > > > > > > > > > > > with addressing it > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; (motivation for change versus > > > > > motivation > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility) is a > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; task > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > for > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; all of us to undertake (or not) in > > > > > public > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > dev@ > > > > > > > > > > > and user@. > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt;&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost > among > > the crosstalk, meaning torn > > > > from > > > > > > > > truth's > > > > > > > > > > > decrepit hands > > > > > > > > > > > &nbsp;&nbsp; - A23, > > Crosstalk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
