[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14057405#comment-14057405
]
Benoit Chesneau commented on COUCHDB-2248:
------------------------------------------
While I don't see any reason to change the known in context terminology, which
is another topic, the concept of "single-master" doesn't replace at all the
concept of master-slave. Neither is multi-master in fact though it is
expressing more of it. Maybe master-servant would replace it, though there are
probably people offended by this term even if the context where the word is
used is not charged.
If we really want to change it (even if a majority of people disapproved it on
the thread) then why not describing the whole concept instead of replacing it
without a non applicable concept?
> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Noah Slater
> Assignee: Alexander Shorin
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be
> good to avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also
> have to deal with what we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to
> peer" as a replacement, or just "peer" if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any
> supporting material can be updated after.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
