Perhaps the following approach might make sense: (1) Identify the changes that would need to be made.
(2) Understand the impact of those changes. (3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we have plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making a change would be a relatively simple process? (4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking similar efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near future. It would seem prudent to learn from their experiences. There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a detailed proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the experiences of other open source projects. The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late 1990s, and by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by the mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point. > On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and > tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality. > > This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One > thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. > (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want > avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community > consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Lerman <aler...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org > Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <kep...@ll.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master > > I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a > possible choice. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < > kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Will it break user code? >> >>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <brianl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last >>> discussed, >> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. >> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service >> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done. >>> >>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? >> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be >> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more >> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held. >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mjw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and >>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to >> understand >>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. >>>> Billie, >> do >>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jmow...@evoforge.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. >>>>> That >> could >>>>> also be a possibility. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM >>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org> >>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master >>>>> >>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about >>>>> renaming >> the >>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. >> Some >>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world >>>>> and >> in >>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic. >>>>> >>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start >>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably >>>>> a >> GitHub >>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change >>>>> and I >> am >>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping >>>>> out >> too, >>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several >>>>> discrete tasks. >>>>> >>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the >>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to >>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / >>>>> AdminServer. >> Admin is >>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts >>>>> and other ideas, if you have them. >>>>> >>>>> Billie >>>>> >>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844 >>>>> >>> >> >> >
