"+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
"master/slave" I.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 kept as it is
and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote
separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
is ridiculous.
Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
voting preference:
---------------->
Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
"Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
[] Master-Slave
[] Mesos-Slave
[] Mesos-Minion
[] Master-Minion
[] Master-Follower
[] Mesos-Follower
[] Master-worker
[] Mesos-worker
[] etc etc
<-----------------
Tally the result and go from there.
James
On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
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) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16
_1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
_2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
_3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)
_4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.
_5. How do we vote on this?_
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
votes and no negative ones.
Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <eken...@wizcorp.jp
<mailto:eken...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
+1 for keeping master/slave.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
<panyun...@huawei.com <mailto:panyun...@huawei.com>> wrote:
+1 master/slave. ____
__ __
These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
have different definitions from those of social or political
view. ____
__ __
*发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtl...@gmail.com
<mailto:zhouwtl...@gmail.com>]
*发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
*收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <mailto:user@mesos.apache.org>
*主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
__ __
+1 master/slave, no change needed.____
__ __
2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com
<mailto:an...@malloc64.com>>:____
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 master/slave
James made some very good points and there is no technical
reason for
wasting time on this.
On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> case ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguv...@gmail.com
<mailto:erenguv...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:erenguv...@gmail.com <mailto:erenguv...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xia...@gmail.com
<mailto:xia...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:xia...@gmail.com <mailto:xia...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defel...@gmail.com
<mailto:james.defel...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:james.defel...@gmail.com <mailto:james.defel...@gmail.com>>>:
>
> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toensh...@me.com
<mailto:toensh...@me.com>
> <mailto:toensh...@me.com <mailto:toensh...@me.com>>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> step.
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
<tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
<tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
<http://gmail.com>
> <http://gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
=niNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
__ __
--
<http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
<https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
