[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009183#comment-14009183
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
On IRC, I said to Joan that I can see her argument that using "master"
everywhere is empowering. And also that I like your multi-master approach. But
does it solve the "write masters are a valid concept for CouchDB" problem?
You could say that it's saying "Nope! Your entire system is multi-master! There
are no singular masters!" But I think that we'll have to review the text,
because I suspect that "master-master" or "multi-master" is only used in
contexts where we're talking about specific arrangements of peers. In that
context, I think the meaning actually backfires, implying the inverse is also
valid.
> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Noah Slater
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be
> good to avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also
> have to deal with what we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to
> peer" as a replacement, or just "peer" if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any
> supporting material can be updated after.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
