On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03:20AM +0300, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
Consider 'parent' and 'child': 2nd sounds like 'replica' or 'clone'.
not bad. we might have a winner right off the bat. ^^
Many wrote:
"remote" and "local" could work.
nice try, but nope - while this terminology reflects the
On Tue, Jul 14 2020, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
> I'm not a fan of the renaming movement solely for sake of virtual
> signalling but here it makes sense.
>
> - remote / local
>
> Better carries the semantics and it’s short.
In my setup master is local.
__
Setting aside my thoughts on the practical impact renaming silliness...
How about left/right? This is how StrongSwan (an IPSEC) client handles it.
There may be no directionality implied, but there's still a concept of "stuff
here" and "stuff there".
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, at 6:04 AM, Oswald Budd
Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at all
possible, or at least implicit directionality? Consider this - whenever
there is a sync operation, regardless of which direction that sync occurs,
there is (perhaps) a direction of flow of traffic, at the lowest of levels,
brother/sister?
itchy/scratchy?
More seriously, why do we have to give them such generic names?
Aren't they individually and explicitly given a meaningful name already anyway?
E.g.
Channel work
Endpoint :work-remote:
...
Endpoint :work-local:
...
and that would na
this/that?
here/there?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:05 PM Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03:20AM +0300, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
> > Consider 'parent' and 'child': 2nd sounds like 'replica' or 'clone'.
> >
> not bad. we might have a winner right off the bat. ^^
>
> Many
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:29:39AM -0400, Andy W wrote:
Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at
all possible,
well, of course not.
or at least implicit directionality?
huh?
the idea is to avoid suggesting a _particular_ direction (too strongly).
So, with t
Postoffice / postbox?
It's about mails after all, isn't it? :-)
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 07:13:50PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:29:39AM -0400, Andy W wrote:
> > Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at
> > all possible,
> >
> well
