Yes, that’s possible. I just mentioned that we need a create ticket to INFRA for that.
Regards JB > Le 12 nov. 2020 à 20:22, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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
