In today's TSC meeting we had a discussion of what, if any, role the TSC should play in the renaming process around nomenclatures like master/slave whitelist/blacklist etc.
It's important to understand that the TSC in FD.io, quite intentionally, does not and cannot tell the projects what to do. Given that, and the fact that there are technical details involved in making the proper renaming decisions, we determined that there are two potentially helpful things we can and do: 1) Attempt to assemble helpful guidance to projects in making their decisions. This would include pointing out resources for alternate name ideas, considerations like coordination with neighboring communities and standards bodies that may also be renaming to attempt to achieve consistency etc. 2) Provide a publicly facing visible reporting of what various FD.io projects are doing around renaming. Some renaming is going to involve API changes that take time to responsibly implement. Some renaming will involve consensus seeking with other communities and standards bodies. We want to make clear that we are taking this seriously, taking action, and provide public visibility into the process. As with most things in Open Source, visibility and openness are the best medicine. The TSC is also quite interested in input from the broader community about what we could productively do, suggestions or comments around the current thoughts, and participation from those who wish to be more involved in solving these problems. Ed On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tend to prefer permitlist/denylist personally... but I may have > configured one too many ACLs in my life... > > Ed > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jul 14, 2020, at 1:20 PM, St Leger, Jim <jim.st.le...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I believe the DPDK community converged on: >> > master/slave lcore -> initial/worker lcore >> >> VPP is ok here I think with "main" and "worker". >> >> > blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist >> >> That one feels a bit clunky to me. I wonder why they didn't go for >> something more natural like >> >> nouns: blocked/allowed >> verbs: block/allow >> >> The terms blacklist/whitelist can be a nouns or verbs, and I suspect they >> are often not implemented as an actual list data structure, so trying to >> keep the "list" suffix seems an unnecessary carryover (and sounds clunky >> IMHO). :) >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> >> > >> > Full community discussion: >> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-June/thread.html#169337 >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Jerome >> Tollet via lists.fd.io >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:10 AM >> > To: Chris Luke <chris_l...@comcast.com>; Steven Luong (sluong) < >> slu...@cisco.com>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Kinsella, >> Ray <m...@ashroe.eu>; Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; >> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; t...@lists.fd.io; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> >> > Subject: Re: [tsc] [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature >> > >> > Hi Chris, >> > I suspect it would be good to align on the new bond nomenclature coming >> from other projects. DPDK and Linux are probably starting points we should >> consider IMO. >> > Jerome >> > >> > Le 14/07/2020 18:45, « t...@lists.fd.io au nom de Chris Luke » < >> t...@lists.fd.io au nom de chris_l...@comcast.com> a écrit : >> > >> > It is subjective and contextualized. But in this case, if making the >> effort to correct a wrong, why stop half way? >> > >> > Chris. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Jerome >> Tollet via lists.fd.io >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 >> > To: Steven Luong (sluong) <slu...@cisco.com>; Dave Barach (dbarach) >> <dbar...@cisco.com>; Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu>; Stephen Hemminger < >> step...@networkplumber.org>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; t...@lists.fd.io; Ed >> Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> >> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature >> > >> > Hi Steven, >> > Please note that per this proposition, >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/4/229__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!QdLdxm4rtZW-mFe5jt_qzEpx-_X2KWnqvjyEl-7Py41jsEV7FrnEw0lTNcF8LdfUzQ$ >> , slave must be avoided but master can be kept. >> > Maybe master/member or master/secondary could be options too. >> > Jerome >> > >> > Le 14/07/2020 18:32, « vpp-dev@lists.fd.io au nom de steven luong >> via lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io au nom de sluong= >> cisco....@lists.fd.io> a écrit : >> > >> > I am in the process of pushing a patch to replace master/slave >> with aggregator/member for the bonding. >> > >> > Steven >> > >> > On 7/13/20, 4:44 AM, "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of Dave >> Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of dbarach= >> cisco....@lists.fd.io> wrote: >> > >> > +1, especially since our next release will be supported for >> a year, and API name changes are involved... >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> >> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM >> > To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Stephen >> Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; >> t...@lists.fd.io; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> >> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature >> > >> > Hi Stephen, >> > >> > I agree, I don't think we should ignore this. >> > Ed - I suggest we table a discussion at the next FD.io TSC? >> > >> > Ray K >> > >> > On 09/07/2020 17:05, Dave Barach via lists.fd.io wrote: >> >> Looping in the technical steering committee... >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Stephen >> Hemminger >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM >> >> To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> >> Subject: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature >> >> >> >> Is the VPP project addressing the use of master/slave nomenclature in >> the code base, documentation and CLI? We are doing this for DPDK and it >> would be good if the replacement wording used in DPDK matched the wording >> used in FD.io projects. >> >> >> >> Particularly problematic is the use of master/slave in bonding. >> >> This seems to be a leftover from Linux, since none of the commercial >> products use that terminology and it is not present in 802.1AX standard. >> >> >> >> The IEEE and IETF are doing an across the board look at these terms in >> standards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16985): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16985 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/75503531/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
