Just to be clear Bryan there is no issue with you asking questions or
reviving discussion. I was just trying to summarize for you because I do
believe we had a fairly clear outcome.
Because there has been no additional comment in a long time -- i.e. it's
now lazy consensus -- I felt I could be more definitive in the restatement
of the summary.
We can certainly reopen the discussion if I have mischaracterized the
consensus, or if there isn't actually a consensus, or if anyone has changed
their position in the intervening months.
Otherwise, we are just waiting for patch contribution...
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:02 AM Bryan Beaudreault
<bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry Andrew, I think I misinterpreted aspects of your last summary. It
> seemed like maybe there were still open questions and I was mostly just
> curious if something had been (or should be) captured anywhere else. Your
> new summary helps clarify the conclusion, thanks for providing it.
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bryan,
> >
> > Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
> > perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
> > conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
> > controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master",
> does
> > not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
> > case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
> > like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
> > welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
> > the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the
> change
> > to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
> > support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
> > deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes
> impact
> > one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
> >
> > What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
> >
> > Actual patches.
> >
> > It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
> > <bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> > > don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> > > Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the
> original
> > 3
> > > JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing
> > an
> > > initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate
> > in 3
> > > and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make
> that
> > > change.
> > >
> > > If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for
> posterity.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Circling back after more inputs, if we use this as a description of
> the
> > > > proposals:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with ???, 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".
> > > >
> > > > Then by my read of the responses we have consensus to do #2, #3, and
> > #4.
> > > > They were not controversial. JIRAs and patches will be welcome. Seems
> > > > pretty clear committers and PMC will approve and do what is needed to
> > > > complete any necessary deprecation cycle.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding #1, opinion is mixed. By my read I also think committers
> and
> > > PMC
> > > > will approve patches and do what is needed to complete any necessary
> > > > deprecation cycle for this one too. Enough PMC members expressed
> > support
> > > to
> > > > successfully vote on a release (although not if there were to be
> > opposing
> > > > votes). If a contributor were to open a JIRA and provide patches for
> > > this,
> > > > there would be more discussion. There is no consensus, yet, on what
> > > > replacement term is best. Personally, I can accept Zheng's recent
> > > > suggestion of "controller". I can see how syllable count matters.
> > > >
> > > > I don't mean this summary to close the conversation. It is only a
> > > > checkpoint.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone reading this has an opinion they do not wish to express
> > > > publically, you are welcome to write to priv...@hbase.apache.org to
> > > state
> > > > your opinion and the PMC will of course respectfully listen to it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:47 PM zheng wang <18031...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I like the controller.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Coordinator is a bit long for me to write and speak.
> > > > > Manager and Admin is used somewhere yet in HBase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > > 发件人: "Andrew Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org>;
> > > > > 发送时间: 2020年6月26日(星期五) 上午9:08
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
> > > > >
> > > > > Oooooh... I like AdminServer. AdminServer (serving admin functions)
> > and
> > > > > RegionServer (serving region data).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:46 PM Andrey Elenskiy
> > > > > <andrey.elens...@arista.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator"
> > > that
> > > > > is clear
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are also:
> > > > > > - captain (sounds pretty close to "master" without the
> negative
> > > side
> > > > > and it
> > > > > > should be relatable around the world)
> > > > > > - conductor (as in orchestra)
> > > > > > - controller (in kafka controller assigns partitions)
> > > > > > - RegionDriver (more relevant to what it's actually doing in
> > hbase
> > > > and
> > > > > > borrowed from PlacementDrive of TiKV)
> > > > > > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Sean Busbey <
> bus...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > ------------------&nbsp;原始邮件&nbsp;------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 发件人:&nbsp;"Andrew
> > > > > Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 发送时间:&nbsp;2020年6月23日(星期二) 凌晨5:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 收件人:&nbsp;"Hbase-User"<
> > > > > user@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 抄送:&nbsp;"dev"<
> > > > > d...@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 主题:&nbsp;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
> > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; For most of
> the
> > > > > proposals (slave -&gt; worker,
> > > > > > blacklist
> > > > > > > > > -&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > denylist,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > whitelist-&gt;
> > > > > allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding).
> > > > > > Denylist
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > acceptlist even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; have the
> > > advantage
> > > > > of being clearer than the terms
> > > > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replacing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; However, I'm
> > not
> > > > > convinced about changing "master" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > "coordinator",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; something
> > > similar.
> > > > > Unlike "slave", which is negative
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > context,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; "master" has
> > many
> > > > > definitions, including some common
> > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; appear
> > > problematic.
> > > > > See
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > >>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > &gt <
> > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>>
> > >>;
> > > > >;
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; examples. In
> > > > > particular, the progression of an artisan
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; "apprentice"
> to
> > > > > "journeyman" to "master". A master
> > > > > > > smith,
> > > > > > > > > > > > carpenter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; artist would
> > run
> > > a
> > > > > shop managing lots of workers and
> > > > > > > > > > apprentices
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; hope to
> become
> > > > > masters of their own someday. So
> > > > > > "master"
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "worker"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; still go
> > > together.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Since it's
> the
> > > > least
> > > > > problematic term, and by far the
> > > > > > > > > hardest
> > > > > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; change (both
> > > within
> > > > > HBase and with effects on
> > > > > > downstream
> > > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Ambari), I'm
> -0
> > > > > (nonbinding) on changing "master".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; Geoffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; On Mon, Jun
> 22,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > at 1:32 PM Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; <
> > > > > rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; +1
> to
> > > > > renaming.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > Rushabh
> > > > Shah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Software Engineering SMTS
> |
> > > > > > > > > > Salesforce
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > >
> &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> > -
> > > > > Mobile: 213
> > > > > > > 422
> > > > > > > > > > 9052
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; On
> > Mon,
> > > > Jun
> > > > > 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > els...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > On
> > > > > 6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; We should change our use of these
> > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > equally or more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; what we are trying to convey where they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; That they have been used historically
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if the advantage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; gain from using them through that
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > outweighs the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; friction they add. They make me
> > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > enthusiastic about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; contributing. That's enough friction
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advocate removing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; AFAICT reworking our replication stuff
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "active" and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > "passive"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; clusters did not result in a big spike
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; where authority for state was.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew
> > > > > > > Purtell
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org
> > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; In response to renewed attention at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Foundation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > toward addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; culturally problematic language and
> > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; documentation and discussion,
> > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have begun
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; made proposals, or started work
> > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lines.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; The HBase PMC began its own
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > private@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on June 9, 2020
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > with an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; observation of this activity and
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > suggestion:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; There is a renewed push back
> > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > classic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > technology industry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; terms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; have negative modern connotations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; In the case of HBase, the following
> > > > > > > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might be proposed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; - Coordinator instead of master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; - Worker instead of slave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Recommendations for these
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > also come up in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; type of discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; - Accept list instead of white list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; - Deny list instead of black list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Unfortunately we have Master all
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > base, baked into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > various
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; APIs and configuration variable
> > > > > > > names,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the necessary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; amount to a new major release and
> > > > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cycle. It could well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; it in the long run. We exist only
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > draw a willing and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; sufficient contributor community.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be great to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; activist fork appear somewhere,
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > unlikely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be successful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Relevant JIRAs are:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > HBASE-12677 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > >>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Update
> > > > > > > > > replication
> > > > > > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarify terminology
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > HBASE-13852 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > >>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Replace
> > > > > > > > > > master-slave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology in book,
> > site,
> > > > > and javadoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; modern
> > > > > > > > vocabulary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > HBASE-24576 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > >>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Changing
> > > > > > > > > > "whitelist"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "blacklist" in our
> docs
> > > and
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; In response to this proposal, a
> > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > asked if the term
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; 'master' used by itself would be
> > > > > > > fine,
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only have use of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > 'slave'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; in replication documentation and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > addressed. In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; this question, others on the PMC
> > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; 'master'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; used, in this context it is still a
> > > > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; For folks who are surprised or
> > > > > > > lacking
> > > > > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the details of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; discussion, one PMC member offered
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > link
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > draft RFC as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > background:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; There was general support for
> > > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "master" / "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; our code base and using the terms
> > > > > > > > > > > "coordinator"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "leader" instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; context of replication, "worker"
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > "destination"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; or "follower" would be more
> > > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; One PMC member's thoughts on
> > > > > > language
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-native English
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; speakers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; worth including in its entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; While words like
> > > > > > > > > blacklist/whitelist/slave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; negative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; references, word master might not
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impact for non
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; English speakers like myself where
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > literal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > translation to my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> mother
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; tongue does not have this same bad
> > > > > > > > > > > connotation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replacing all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > references
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; for word *master *on our
> > > > > > > docs/codebase
> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > effort, I guess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; decision would be more suitable for
> > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > speakers folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; maybe we should consider the
> > > > > > opinion
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors from that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; ethinic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; minority as well?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; These are good questions for public
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; We have a consensus in the PMC, at
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is supportive of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; the above discussed terminology
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we also have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > concerns
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; about what it would take to
> > > > > > > accomplish
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes. Several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; PMC offered support in the form of
> > > > > > > > cycles
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review pull requests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; patches, and two PMC members
> > > > > > > > > offered&nbsp;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > personal bandwidth for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; creating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; releasing new code lines as needed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > complete
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Unfortunately, the terms "master"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > appear throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; base in class names, user facing
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > subject
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > our project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; guidelines, and configuration
> > > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > > > names,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which are also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > implicated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; compatibility guidelines given the
> > > > > > > > impact
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes to operators
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; operations. The changes being
> > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > backwards compatible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; changes and cannot be executed with
> > > > > > > > > > swiftness
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > while simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; preserving compatibility. There
> > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle.
> > First,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; tag all implicated public API and
> > > > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variables as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > deprecated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; and release HBase 3 with these
> > > > > > > > > deprecations
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > place. Then, we must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; undertake rename and removal as
> > > > > > > > > > appropriate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release the result
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; HBase 4.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; One PMC member raised a question in
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included here in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Are we willing to commit to rolling
> > > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > major versions at a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; pace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; that's necessary to make this
> > > > > > > > transition
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > swift
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; reasonably possible?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; This is a question for all of us.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would supervise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; effort, perhaps contribute to it,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > certainly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote on the release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; candidates. For contributors and
> > > > > > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors, who
> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; the necessary patches. For
> > > > > > > committers,
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be required to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; commit the relevant changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; Although there has been some
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; singular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; proposal, or plan, or set of
> > > > > > > decisions
> > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this time. Wrestling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; this concern and the competing
> > > > > > > concerns
> > > > > > > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with addressing it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; (motivation for change versus
> > > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility) is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; task
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt; all of us to undertake (or not) in
> > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > dev@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and user@.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Words like orphans
> lost
> > > > among
> > > > > the crosstalk, meaning torn
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > truth's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decrepit hands
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > A23,
> > > > > Crosstalk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> > truth's
> > > > > decrepit hands
> > > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrew
> > > >
> > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> truth's
> > > > decrepit hands
> > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> > - A23, Crosstalk
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
