I like the idea of updating changelogs where possible, though it may be more complicated than pure text replacement, especially when a string is used to describe something from the user interface.
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 7:21 AM Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: > My vote is for updating changelogs where possible. Less obsolete > terminology entries we have, the better for everyone. Of course > retrospectively changing things like whitelisted-classes.txt filename for > JEP-200 is not an option. But it is fine to do it where you just have text > or Web UI controls. For the latter ones we might need to cleanup > documentation and changelogs in parallel with the updates of changelogs. > > (@Angélique: thanks :P) > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:59 PM Angélique Jard <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello, what do you think about changing terminology in changelogs ? The >> topic has been raised on Jira comment here: >> >> https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-65398?focusedCommentId=408976&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-408976 >> >> I was not doing it because changing the past didn't seems accurate, but I >> don't have a strong opinion, I would say "why not". Does anyone has some >> opinion on that ? >> >> (@Oleg: I love that board by the way :D ) >> >> On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 11:51:06 PM UTC+2 Oleg Nenashev wrote: >> >>> 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 a topic in the >> Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/x5vdlJDvntw/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/ff3dbd9b-8f7d-476f-ad09-153d4435fb52n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/ff3dbd9b-8f7d-476f-ad09-153d4435fb52n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > 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/CAPfivLBQ_MvAUyGKqA_bDN5bAdC%3D2YPUsz4apHrccNmZkaQvTw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLBQ_MvAUyGKqA_bDN5bAdC%3D2YPUsz4apHrccNmZkaQvTw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAO49JtEaCx2P5GsuRp0s78uLXa7M3V-V08ZD5vCdg0pAC5EeLA%40mail.gmail.com.
