+1 My proposal was/is 100% about people. Nothing more.
Bruce
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:04 PM Cunningham wrote:
> *> "...It sounds to me that we are getting involved more in politics than
> computer science..."*
>
> More and more these days, you hear things like "*successful software
> developm
*> "...It sounds to me that we are getting involved more in politics than
computer science..."*
More and more these days, you hear things like "*successful software
development is about _people_*".
Last year when all this kind of thing first started kicking off, I
originally had the same position
+1 agree and well stated. I’ll kick off a message to get the ball moving on a
draft proposal for consideration
> On Jul 25, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
> many other projects and companies are alrea
Btw if someone took a lead and made the change I wouldn’t ever disrespect
the person and I wouldn’t care what term was used.
The terms was a more discussion but if someone took the lead and done it No
one should mind IMHO.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan.
Compatibility wise we have no other option other than deprecate. The only
question I have is if we should log.warn when those configuration are in
use.
To what terms primary and replica sounds good to me.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wr
As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help
out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I
think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There
sh
The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
compatibility and deprecate old terms.
We need volunteers.
can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms
Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
secondary, etc)
Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over for
the primary,
and it is generally non-deterministic.
IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for nodes
On 7/15/20 3:48 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
Actually this may be easier than I thought. I forgot that OpenWire doesn’t
include property names so we might be able to get away with just renaming
things and everything would work fine and be compatible as long as
properties are in the same order.
Actually this may be easier than I thought. I forgot that OpenWire doesn’t
include property names so we might be able to get away with just renaming
things and everything would work fine and be compatible as long as
properties are in the same order. It needs to be looked at more to verify
of course
Gary, that makes sense to me as I think making sure everything is backwards
compatible for existing users is important. (not just for openwire but all
config, etc) There would need to be some work done in the broker to know
which properties to use based on the negotiated openwire version and be
abl
+1
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:48 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea a
> écrit :
>
> > Justin,
> >
> > I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
> > "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
> > do
Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea a
écrit :
> Justin,
>
> I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
> "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
> do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And
> t
Justin,
I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
"active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And
they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for
resil
Hi Clebert,
There absolutely isn't general consensus on the terminology used :).
Like you (I infer from what you wrote), I don't see how the terms would be
offensive. They have a clear, well documented, meaning for many decades and
they clearly apply to computers and services, not humans. Anybody
FWIW the organization I work for uses the terms active and standby, if I
may add that to the suggestion list.
On 7/14/2020 8:36 AM, Justin Bertram wrote:
Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
between the configured role and the running role?
Justin
On Tue, J
Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
between the configured role and the running role?
Justin
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>
>
> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could
I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
slave without being offensive.
But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
opinion to the side there.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram
Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally
called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
"passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect,
but it covers most cases.
Justin
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Fr
It sounds to me that we are getting involved more in politics than computer
science.
Be it as it may, it would be good to understand that every change we make
will incur a cost for many of our downstream users. Change their build
systems to use a different branch name, testing, qualifying. I would
"If you are using Artemis replication, your workers have nothing to lose,
except their chains!" :D
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 14:00 Xeno Amess wrote:
> > In Artemis, slave is replicating
> > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
> This situation seems actually quite
> In Artemis, slave is replicating
> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
This situation seems actually quite suitable for "capitalist/worker"
Jiri Daněk 于2020年7月14日周二 下午7:42写道：
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess wrote:
>
> > Like I said, I think "w
I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other
terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of the
broker.
For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role co
I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way to go.
keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both
sensible and necessary.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess wrote:
> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
> activeMQ.
>
Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is replicating
the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. The
"work
Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
activeMQ.
And that is reasonable.
But I haven't found a very good word to replace "master"...
Maybe we can use "capitalists"? But that might be too far...
Any suggestions about this?
My last post was supposed to say "For Artemis, maybe we deprecate in 2.x
and then remove in 3.x"
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:43 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
> that we should make sure to pi
I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think live/backup
certainly makes a lot of
They did?
OK, then I have no more doubts.
Justin Bertram 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
> For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so there's
> no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-5305
For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so there's
no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
Justin
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess wrote:
> Hi.
> If you really think "master" is
However, I agree to change "slave" to "worker".
That is reasonable.
Xeno Amess 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:17写道：
> Hi.
> If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
> might argue with github first.
> after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
> more
Hi.
If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you might
argue with github first.
after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
more user than ActiveMQ.
Bruce Snyder 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'bac
Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the private
list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily, so
if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with that
in ActiveMQ.
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master" and
"slave" respectively. The Artemis code and docum
Not a comprehensive list. I am currently going after the low-hanging fruit:
* master
* slave
* blacklist
* whitelist
I have not yet considered anything beyond these words yet. If and as we
find additional words, we should add them to the JIRA issue.
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Clebert
Do we have a list for terms considered offensive ?
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> projects. Examples include 'master,' '
36 matches
Mail list logo
