We should probably switch the dev from master to main on our repos. and have master mirroring main for some time allowing folks to update their scripts... (like I have a few private CI machines.. I bet other folks will have similar things).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- Clebert Suconic
