+1 On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:17 AM Laszlo Gaal <laszlo.g...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:14 PM Joe McDonnell <joemcdonn...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Andrew Sherman <asher...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:21 AM Jim Apple <jbap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I support this idea. It's also more descriptive! 🙂 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:00 AM Shant Hovsepian < > > > sh...@superdupershant.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on more inclusive terminology for some of our > concepts? > > We > > > > > tend to use coordinator / worker as opposed to master / slave. > There > > > > aren't > > > > > too many places where we use the term blacklist, but there are a > few > > > > > pending features for faulty node and disk handling that might > benefit > > > > from > > > > > a more inclusive adoption of terminology. > > > > > > > > > > How about using ban or allow lists going forward? We can consider > > > adding > > > > an > > > > > alias for the flags blacklisted_dbs, blacklisted_tables, and > > > > > blacklisting_enabled. > > > > > > > > > > -Shant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
