Since "overseer" is also problematic, I'd like to propose "orchestrator" as an alternative.
Thomas Op vr 19 jun. 2020 04:34 schreef Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org>: > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
