Master - Worker Master - Peon Master - Helper Master - Servant The term that is not wanted is “slave’. The term “master” is not a problem IMO.
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 3:59 PM, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > I support Mike Drob and Trey Grainger. We shuold re-use the leader/replica > terminology from Cloud. Even if you hand-configure a master/slave cluster > and orchestrate what doc goes to which node/shard, and hand-code your shards > parameter, you will still have a cluster where you’d send updates to the > leader of > each shard and the replicas would replicate the index from the leader. > > Let’s instead find a new good name for the cluster type. Standalone kind of > works > for me, but I see it can be confused with single-node. We have also discussed > replacing SolrCloud (which is a terrible name) with something more > descriptive. > > Today: SolrCloud vs Master/slave > Alt A: SolrCloud vs Standalone > Alt B: SolrCloud vs Legacy > Alt C: Clustered vs Independent > Alt D: Clustered vs Manual mode > > Jan > >> 18. jun. 2020 kl. 15:53 skrev Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>: >> >> I personally think that using Solr cloud terminology for this would be fine >> with leader/follower. The leader is the one that accepts updates, followers >> cascade the updates somehow. The presence of ZK or election doesn’t really >> change this detail. >> >> However, if folks feel that it’s confusing, then I can’t tell them that >> they’re not confused. Especially when they’re working with others who have >> less Solr experience than we do and are less familiar with the intricacies. >> >> Primary/Replica seems acceptable. Coordinator instead of Overseer seems >> acceptable. >> >> Would love to see this in 9.0! >> >> Mike >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:25 AM John Gallagher >> <jgallag...@slack-corp.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> While on the topic of renaming roles, I'd like to propose finding a better >>> term than "overseer" which has historical slavery connotations as well. >>> Director, perhaps? >>> >>> >>> John Gallagher >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to rename master/slave, and +1 to choosing terminology distinct >>>> from what's used for SolrCloud. I could be happy with several of the >>>> proposed options. Since a good few have been proposed though, maybe >>>> an eventual vote thread is the most organized way to aggregate the >>>> opinions here. >>>> >>>> I'm less positive about the prospect of changing the name of our >>>> primary git branch. Most projects that contributors might come from, >>>> most tutorials out there to learn git, most tools built on top of git >>>> - the majority are going to assume "master" as the main branch. I >>>> appreciate the change that Github is trying to effect in changing the >>>> default for new projects, but it'll be a long time before that >>>> competes with the huge bulk of projects, documentation, etc. out there >>>> using "master". Our contributors are smart and I'm sure they'd figure >>>> it out if we used "main" or something else instead, but having a >>>> non-standard git setup would be one more "papercut" in understanding >>>> how to contribute to a project that already makes that harder than it >>>> should. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:33 AM Demian Katz <demian.k...@villanova.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Regarding people having a problem with the word "master" -- GitHub is >>>> changing the default branch name away from "master," even in isolation >>> from >>>> a "slave" pairing... so the terminology seems to be falling out of favor >>> in >>>> all contexts. See: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> https://www.cnet.com/news/microsofts-github-is-removing-coding-terms-like-master-and-slave/ >>>>> >>>>> I'm not here to start a debate about the semantics of that, just to >>>> provide evidence that in some communities, the term "master" is causing >>>> concern all by itself. If we're going to make the change anyway, it might >>>> be best to get it over with and pick the most appropriate terminology we >>>> can agree upon, rather than trying to minimize the amount of change. It's >>>> going to be backward breaking anyway, so we might as well do it all now >>>> rather than risk having to go through two separate breaking changes at >>>> different points in time. >>>>> >>>>> - Demian >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:51 AM >>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Getting rid of Master/Slave nomenclature in >>> Solr >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the code I see a 692 occurrences of the word "slave". >>>>> Mostly variable names and ref guide docs. >>>>> >>>>> The word "slave" is present in the responses as well. Any change in the >>>> request param/response payload is backward incompatible. >>>>> >>>>> I have no objection to changing the names in ref guide and other >>>> internal variables. Going ahead with backward incompatible changes is >>>> painful. If somebody has the appetite to take it up, it's OK >>>>> >>>>> If we must change, master/follower can be a good enough option. >>>>> >>>>> master (noun): A man in charge of an organization or group. >>>>> master(adj) : having or showing very great skill or proficiency. >>>>> master(verb): acquire complete knowledge or skill in (a subject, >>>> technique, or art). >>>>> master (verb): gain control of; overcome. >>>>> >>>>> I hope nobody has a problem with the term "master" >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:19 PM Ilan Ginzburg <ilans...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Would master/follower work? >>>>>> >>>>>> Half the rename work while still getting rid of the slavery >>>> connotation... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu 18 Jun 2020 at 07:13, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been interesting watching this discussion play out on >>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>> open source mailing lists. On other projects, I have seen a VERY >>>>>>> high level of resistance to these changes, which I find disturbing >>>>>>> and surprising. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is nice to see everyone just pitch in and do it on this >>> list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wunder >>>>>>> Walter Underwood >>>>>>> wun...@wunderwood.org >>>>>>> >>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fobs >>>>>>> erver.wunderwood.org >>> %2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdemian.katz%40villanova.e >>>>>>> >>> du%7C1eef0604700a442deb7e08d8134b97fb%7C765a8de5cf9444f09cafae5bf8cf >>>>>>> >>> a366%7C0%7C0%7C637280562684672329&sdata=0GyK5Tlq0PGsWxl%2FirJOVN >>>>>>> VaFCELlEChdxuLJ5RxdQs%3D&reserved=0 (my blog) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Noble Paul >>>> >>> >
