one easy change is the name of our main branch... github has switched to use main for any new repository created instead of master.
Would we need Infra to make that change? On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:48 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > I remember that thread.. > > > but I think in most cases primary / backup makes more sense... > > > But I don't mind which term we choose TBH... IMO we should just stick > to primary / backup, but if somewhere specifically leader / follower > makes more sense. .why not? > > > I would leave it at the discression of the person implementing the > change. When you get your hands on it makes more sense. > > > @JB If you send a Pull Request and want an extra pair of eyes to make > sure on the changes.. let me know on this thread and i will help > reviewing it. > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:27 PM Christopher Shannon > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There was already another thread on this topic along with a Jira: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 > > > > New terms were already somewhat decided in that thread as primary/backup > > doesn't make sense in all cases. It depends on what the application is > > (leader/follower, etc) > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I agree with the terms (I think we have kind of consensus). > > > > > > I will start the change on ActiveMQ side (as I’m working on new releases > > > and updates). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > > Le 10 nov. 2020 à 17:26, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > What about this... lets propose the following changes: > > > > > > > > - master should become primary (we could refer to it as primary server > > > in docs) > > > > - slave should become backup (same way, we could refer to it as backup > > > > server in docs) > > > > - whitelist: allowlist > > > > - blacklist: denylist > > > > > > > > TBH: master and slave are the most used words among the list, on both > > > > activemq and artemis codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working with my company (Red Hat) to allow time from someone on > > > > our team to work on this, and I believe we can set up someone > > > > dedicated to it early 2021 on the ActiveMQ Artemis codebase. > > > > > > > > We still need volunteers to do it on the ActiveMQ codebase.... > > > > > > > > > > > > In regard to the list of names, I am not particularly strongly > > > > opinionated with the terms.. but if someone is, please suggest a > > > > different term to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:38 PM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2020/11/05 17:34:25, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> *My* particular issue around this was not knowing what to do with > > > >>> configuration parameters and APIs. > > > >>> > > > >>> If we simply remove those, older clients, older configs would not > > > work any > > > >>> longer. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is deprecation here a valid approach? Is there consensus around it ? > > > >> > > > >> Yes, we definitely recommend that you have a published deprecation > > > plan, so that there's sufficient warning, and you don't break existing > > > installations. Exactly what that timing is, is going to vary a great deal > > > from one project to another, and only you and your users can figure that > > > out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
