Do we have any terms we'd like to finalize during the next meeting?
I have also created https://github.com/orgs/jenkinsci/projects/5 to track 
the related pull requests and to see where any help is needed

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:12:31 AM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We made decisions on a few terms at the yesterday's governance meeting:
>
>    
>
>    - Master node => "Built-in Node"
>
>
>    - "master" label => "built-in" // We will use it unless we discover a 
>    technical issue with the hyphen. Then we fallback to “builtin” 
>
>
>    - “Master branch” in documentation and help => "default branch"
>    - Agent-to-Master security => " Agent-to-Controller security "
>    - "Jenkins master container " => "Jenkins controller container"
>
>
>    - "Serialization whitelist" for JEP-200 => "serialization allowlist"
>
> We also agreed that we will be using "allowlist" in our terminology, not 
> the "permitlist" as it was suggested in a few occasions. We have not 
> finalized decisions on other terms, including the "Jenkins master pod". I 
> raised https://github.com/jenkinsci/kubernetes-operator/issues/561 in the 
> Jenkins operator project to track the change on its side once we agree on 
> the term.
>
> If anyone is interested, I can create a global "terminology cleanup" 
> project in the jenkinsci organization. It will allow tracking pull request 
> better on the GitHub's side
>
> Best regards,
> Oleg Nenashev
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:02:42 PM UTC+2 Daniel Beck wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 4. May 2021, at 16:59, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > • Master node => "Built-in Node" 
>>
>> To provide a bit of context for this one for those that don't remember 
>> from last year :-) 
>>
>> Before, there was no real distinction between "Jenkins master, the 
>> process" (mostly) and "Jenkins master, the node". When I worked on the PR 
>> in which I started cleaning up the terms, it became apparent a different 
>> term could be useful.[1] 
>>
>> A simple example: The built-in node can be offline while the controller 
>> is otherwise running. 
>>
>> In some code, the relation between master-specific and global node 
>> properties also wasn't clear in some places because both were occasionally 
>> called "master" (and only one set is inherited by agents). 
>>
>> There's not a huge list of obvious examples because a lot of the things 
>> that could matter are shared (process, file system, config file to an 
>> extent) or irrelevant (node launcher). 
>>
>> I still think it would be useful to distinguish in terms between the 
>> controller and the built-in node, if only because 'controller' for the node 
>> may create wrong associations (it controlling things, rather than "just" 
>> being part of the controller process). 
>>
>>
>> However there are also limitations, which make a different term not an 
>> obviously correct choice: 
>>
>> - The built-in node is part of the controller process, it shares the 
>> controller's file system and OS permissions. If the built-in node is doing 
>> work, the controller has load. A lot of resources are shared, so "the 
>> built-in node's configuration is stored in the config.xml file with most of 
>> the controller configuration on the controller file system" etc. 
>> - People seem to confuse executors and nodes/agents fairly regularly, so 
>> may well consider these to be the same thing because the differences are 
>> way less relevant than compared to agents, leading to wrong documentation 
>> and other advice, possibly confusing those aware of the terms. (It might 
>> help that controller as a term is getting rather well established, and that 
>> the node will get labels (both UI and environment var) referring to it by 
>> its new name, but who knows.) 
>>
>>
>> I encourage you to check out the PR with placeholder term to get a sense 
>> for the differences and consider whether you think distinguishing the terms 
>> is useful. As the PR is still a draft and uses an obvious placeholder term, 
>> please skip doing an actual review for now. 
>>
>> (Note that the behavior-changing code in my PR (related to migration) 
>> would be needed anyway, regardless of the term we choose. It's more about 
>> removing "master" than what the replacement term is.) 
>>
>>
>> 1: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/5425 
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/625db158-905e-4956-8ee9-27680ea08c8bn%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to