It’s easy, but we have to ask to infra (we can’t delete the "old" master branch ourselves once "main" is there).
Regards JB > Le 12 nov. 2020 à 16:33, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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
