...@adobe.com]
*Sent:* 06 June 2015 04:34
*To:* user@mesos.apache.org
*Subject:* RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
+1 master/slave – no need to change
*From:* Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisb...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
*To:* user@mesos.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: 答复
Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
Let's start with the implicit question,
*0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?*
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it)
+1 master/slave, no change needed. is the same as
master/slaveI.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT cc...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
+1 master/slave, no change needed. is the same as
master/slaveI.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman
+1 to what Adam wrote.
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Sam Salisbury samsalisb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT cc...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
+1 master/slave, no change needed. is the
James, I was indeed counting master/slave, no change needed as -1 for
Item 0, but left them out of the summary for Item 1.
Note that this is a [DISCUSS] thread, not a [VOTE] thread, so we're not
officially voting yet, just gathering ideas from the community. All I was
doing with the (manual) fuzzy
+1 master/slave – no need to change
From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT
cc...@tampabay.rr.commailto:cc
7 matches
Mail list logo