How about "manager"?
(It would help me if folks could explain what is lacking in "coordinator".)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 13:32 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -0/+1/+1/+1
> >
> > I’m the one who asked whether ‘master’ is safe to use without ‘slave’ in
> > the private list.
> >
> > I’m still not convinced that it is really necessary and I do not think
> > other words like ‘coordinator’ can fully describe the role of HMaster in
> > HBase. HBase is more than 10 years old. In the context of HBase, the word
> > ‘HMaster’ has its own meaning. Changing the name will hurt our users and
> > make them confusing, especially for us non native English speakers...
> >
>
> Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" that is clear and
> suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
>
> Stack <st...@duboce.net>于2020年6月25日 周四06:34写道：
> >
> > > +1/+1/+1/+1 where hbase3 adds the deprecation and hbase4 follows hbase3
> > > soon after sounds good to me. I'm up for working on this.
> > > S
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM Xu Cang <xuc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Strongly agree with what Nick said here:
> > > >
> > > > " From my perspective, we gain nothing as a project or as a
> community
> > be
> > > > willfully retaining use of language that is well understood to be
> > > > problematic or hurtful,.... On the contrary, we have much to gain by
> > > > encouraging
> > > > contributions from as many people as possible."
> > > >
> > > > +1 to Andrew's proposal.
> > > >
> > > > It might be good to have a source of truth web page or README file
> for
> > > > developers and users to refer to regarding all naming transitions.
> It's
> > > > going to help both developers changing the code and users looking for
> > > some
> > > > answers online that use old namings.
> > > >
> > > > Xu
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to make sure I am emphatically clear that "master"
> by
> > > > itself
> > > > > > is not okay if the context is the same as what would normally be
> a
> > > > > > master/slave context. Furthermore our use of master is clearly
> > such a
> > > > > > context.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree: to me “Master”, as in “HMaster” caries with it the
> > > master/slave
> > > > > baggage. As an alternative, I prefer the term “coordinator” over
> > > > “leader”.
> > > > > Thus we would have daemons called “coordinator” and “region
> server”.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me, “master” as in “master branch” does not carry the same
> > baggage,
> > > > but
> > > > > I’m also in favor changing the name of our default branch to a word
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > less conflicted. I see nothing that we gain as a community by
> > > continuing
> > > > to
> > > > > use this word.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me we have, broadly speaking, consensus around making
> > > *some*
> > > > > > changes. I haven't seen a strong push for "break everything in
> the
> > > name
> > > > > of
> > > > > > expediency" (I would personally be fine with this). So barring
> > > > additional
> > > > > > discussion that favors breaking changes, current approaches
> should
> > > > > comport
> > > > > > with our existing project compatibility goals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we could stop talking about what-ifs and look at actual
> > > practical
> > > > > > examples? If anyone is currently up for doing the work of a PR we
> > can
> > > > > look
> > > > > > at for one of these?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If folks would prefer we e.g. just say "we should break whatever
> we
> > > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > in 3.0.0 to make this happen" then it would be good to speak up.
> > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > likely we would be done with needed changes circa hbase 4,
> probably
> > > > late
> > > > > > 2021 or 2022.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 03:03 zheng wang <18031...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO, master is ok if not used with slave together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -1/+1/+1/+1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > > > > 发件人: "Andrew Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org>;
> > > > > > > 发送时间: 2020年6月23日(星期二) 凌晨5:24
> > > > > > > 收件人: "Hbase-User"<user@hbase.apache.org>;
> > > > > > > 抄送: "dev"<d...@hbase.apache.org>;
> > > > > > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our
> > project
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In observing something like voting happening on this thread to
> > > > express
> > > > > > > alignment or not, it might be helpful to first, come up with a
> > list
> > > > of
> > > > > > > terms to change (if any), and then propose replacements,
> > > > individually.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > far we might break this apart into four proposals:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with ??? ("coordinator" is one
> > > option),
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > one has by far the most significant impact and both opinion and
> > > > > > > interpretation on this one is mixed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Replace "slave" with "follower", seems to impact the cross
> > > cluster
> > > > > > > replication subsystem only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Replace "black list" with "deny list".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Replace "white list" with "accept list".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps if you are inclined to respond with a +1/-1/+0/-0, it
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > useful to give such an indication for each line item above. Or,
> > > offer
> > > > > > > alternative proposals. Or, if you have a singular opinion,
> that's
> > > > fine
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Geoffrey Jacoby <
> > > gjac...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For most of the proposals (slave -> worker, blacklist
> > ->
> > > > > > > denylist,
> > > > > > > > whitelist-> allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding). Denylist
> and
> > > > > > > acceptlist even
> > > > > > > > have the advantage of being clearer than the terms they're
> > > > > > replacing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I'm not convinced about changing "master" to
> > > > > "coordinator",
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > something similar. Unlike "slave", which is negative in
> any
> > > > > context,
> > > > > > > > "master" has many definitions, including some common ones
> > > which
> > > > do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > appear problematic. See
> > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > > > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>;
> for
> > > > > > > > examples. In particular, the progression of an artisan was
> > > from
> > > > > > > > "apprentice" to "journeyman" to "master". A master smith,
> > > > > carpenter,
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > artist would run a shop managing lots of workers and
> > > apprentices
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > hope to become masters of their own someday. So "master"
> and
> > > > > > "worker"
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > still go together.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since it's the least problematic term, and by far the
> > hardest
> > > > term
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > change (both within HBase and with effects on downstream
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > > Ambari), I'm -0 (nonbinding) on changing "master".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Geoffrey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:32 PM Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > <rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 to renaming.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Software Engineering SMTS |
> > > Salesforce
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > - Mobile: 213 422
> > > 9052
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser <
> > > > > els...@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > We should change our use of these terms. We
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > equally or more
> > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > what we are trying to convey where they are
> > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That they have been used historically is
> only
> > > > > useful
> > > > > > > if the advantage
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > gain from using them through that shared
> > > context
> > > > > > > outweighs the
> > > > > > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > > friction they add. They make me personally
> > less
> > > > > > > enthusiastic about
> > > > > > > > > > > contributing. That's enough friction for me
> > to
> > > > > > > advocate removing
> > > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > AFAICT reworking our replication stuff in
> > terms
> > > > of
> > > > > > > "active" and
> > > > > > > > > "passive"
> > > > > > > > > > > clusters did not result in a big spike of
> > folks
> > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > new questions
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > where authority for state was.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew Purtell
> <
> > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> In response to renewed attention at the
> > > > > > Foundation
> > > > > > > toward addressing
> > > > > > > > > > >> culturally problematic language and
> terms
> > > > often
> > > > > > > used in technical
> > > > > > > > > > >> documentation and discussion, several
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > have begun
> > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> made proposals, or started work along
> > these
> > > > > > lines.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The HBase PMC began its own discussion
> on
> > > > > > private@
> > > > > > > on June 9, 2020
> > > > > > > > > > with an
> > > > > > > > > > >> observation of this activity and this
> > > > > suggestion:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> There is a renewed push back against
> > > classic
> > > > > > > technology industry
> > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> have negative modern connotations.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> In the case of HBase, the following
> > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > might be proposed:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> - Coordinator instead of master
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> - Worker instead of slave
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Recommendations for these additional
> > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > also come up in
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> type of discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> - Accept list instead of white list
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> - Deny list instead of black list
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Unfortunately we have Master all over
> our
> > > > code
> > > > > > > base, baked into
> > > > > > > > > various
> > > > > > > > > > >> APIs and configuration variable names,
> so
> > > for
> > > > > us
> > > > > > > the necessary
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> amount to a new major release and
> > > deprecation
> > > > > > > cycle. It could well
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > > >> it in the long run. We exist only as
> long
> > > as
> > > > we
> > > > > > > draw a willing and
> > > > > > > > > > >> sufficient contributor community. It
> also
> > > > > > wouldn’t
> > > > > > > be great to have
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >> activist fork appear somewhere, even if
> > > > > unlikely
> > > > > > > to be successful.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Relevant JIRAs are:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> - HBASE-12677 <
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Update
> > replication
> > > > docs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > clarify terminology
> > > > > > > > > > >> - HBASE-13852 <
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Replace
> > > master-slave
> > > > > > > terminology in book, site, and javadoc
> > > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> modern
> vocabulary
> > > > > > > > > > >> - HBASE-24576 <
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Changing
> > > "whitelist"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > "blacklist" in our docs and project
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> In response to this proposal, a member
> of
> > > the
> > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > asked if the term
> > > > > > > > > > >> 'master' used by itself would be fine,
> > > > because
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > only have use of
> > > > > > > > > > 'slave'
> > > > > > > > > > >> in replication documentation and that
> is
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > addressed. In
> > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> this question, others on the PMC
> > suggested
> > > > that
> > > > > > > even if only
> > > > > > > > 'master'
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> used, in this context it is still a
> > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> For folks who are surprised or lacking
> > > > context
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the details of
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> discussion, one PMC member offered a
> link
> > > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > draft RFC as
> > > > > > > > > > background:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> There was general support for removing
> > the
> > > > term
> > > > > > > "master" / "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> our code base and using the terms
> > > > "coordinator"
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > "leader" instead.
> > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> context of replication, "worker" makes
> > less
> > > > > sense
> > > > > > > and perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > "destination"
> > > > > > > > > > >> or "follower" would be more appropriate
> > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> One PMC member's thoughts on language
> and
> > > > > > > non-native English
> > > > > > > > speakers
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> worth including in its entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> While words like
> > blacklist/whitelist/slave
> > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > >> references, word master might not have
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > impact for non
> > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > >> English speakers like myself where the
> > > > literal
> > > > > > > translation to my
> > > > > > > > > mother
> > > > > > > > > > >> tongue does not have this same bad
> > > > connotation.
> > > > > > > Replacing all
> > > > > > > > > references
> > > > > > > > > > >> for word *master *on our docs/codebase
> > is a
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > effort, I guess
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> decision would be more suitable for
> > native
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > speakers folks,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> maybe we should consider the opinion of
> > > > > > > contributors from that
> > > > > > > > ethinic
> > > > > > > > > > >> minority as well?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> These are good questions for public
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> We have a consensus in the PMC, at this
> > > time,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > is supportive of
> > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > >> the above discussed terminology
> changes.
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > we also have
> > > > > > > > > concerns
> > > > > > > > > > >> about what it would take to accomplish
> > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > changes. Several
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> PMC offered support in the form of
> cycles
> > > to
> > > > > > > review pull requests
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> patches, and two PMC members
> > offered
> > > > > > > personal bandwidth for
> > > > > > > > creating
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> releasing new code lines as needed to
> > > > complete
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > deprecation cycle.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Unfortunately, the terms "master" and
> > > > "hmaster"
> > > > > > > appear throughout
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> base in class names, user facing API
> > > subject
> > > > to
> > > > > > > our project
> > > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >> guidelines, and configuration variable
> > > names,
> > > > > > > which are also
> > > > > > > > > implicated
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> compatibility guidelines given the
> impact
> > > of
> > > > > > > changes to operators
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> operations. The changes being discussed
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > backwards compatible
> > > > > > > > > > >> changes and cannot be executed with
> > > swiftness
> > > > > > > while simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > > >> preserving compatibility. There must
> be a
> > > > > > > deprecation cycle. First,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > >> tag all implicated public API and
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > variables as
> > > > > > > > > deprecated,
> > > > > > > > > > >> and release HBase 3 with these
> > deprecations
> > > > in
> > > > > > > place. Then, we must
> > > > > > > > > > >> undertake rename and removal as
> > > appropriate,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > release the result
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> HBase 4.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> One PMC member raised a question in
> this
> > > > > context
> > > > > > > included here in
> > > > > > > > > > entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Are we willing to commit to rolling
> > through
> > > > the
> > > > > > > major versions at a
> > > > > > > > > pace
> > > > > > > > > > >> that's necessary to make this
> transition
> > as
> > > > > swift
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> reasonably possible?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> This is a question for all of us. For
> the
> > > > PMC,
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > would supervise
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> effort, perhaps contribute to it, and
> > > > certainly
> > > > > > > vote on the release
> > > > > > > > > > >> candidates. For contributors and
> > potential
> > > > > > > contributors, who would
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >> the necessary patches. For committers,
> > who
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > be required to
> > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> commit the relevant changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Although there has been some initial
> > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > there is no
> > > > > > > > singular
> > > > > > > > > > >> proposal, or plan, or set of decisions
> > made
> > > > at
> > > > > > > this time. Wrestling
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> this concern and the competing concerns
> > > > > involved
> > > > > > > with addressing it
> > > > > > > > > > >> (motivation for change versus
> motivation
> > > for
> > > > > > > compatibility) is a
> > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> all of us to undertake (or not) in
> public
> > > on
> > > > > dev@
> > > > > > > and user@.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> > > > truth's
> > > > > > > decrepit hands
> > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
