Trying think of a term that both fresh (and yet sort of standard already) and appropriate: how about IndexFetcher instead of "Slave"? And then "Master" could be "FetchedIndex" or "FetchedSource"
I think it could be beneficial to broaden the range of candidates. ________________________________ From: Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 10:34 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Getting rid of Master/Slave nomenclature in Solr We don’t get to decide whether “master” is a problem. The rest of the world has already decided that it is a problem. Our task is to replace the terms “master” and “slave” in Solr. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Jun 18, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Rahul Goswami <rahul196...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with Phill, Noble and Ilan above. The problematic term is "slave" > (not master) which I am all for changing if it causes less regression than > removing BOTH master and slave. Since some people have pointed out Github > changing the "master" terminology, in my personal opinion, it was not a > measured response to addressing the bigger problem we are all trying to > tackle. There is no concept of a "slave" branch, and "master" by itself is > a pretty generic term (Is someone having "mastery" over a skill a bad > thing?). I fear all it would end up achieving in the end with Github is a > mess of broken build scripts at best. > So +1 on "slave" being the problematic term IMO, not "master". > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:19 PM Phill Campbell > <sirgilli...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
