Postoffice / postbox?
It's about mails after all, isn't it? :-)
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 07:13:50PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:29:39AM -0400, Andy W wrote:
> > Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at
> > all possible,
> >
> well
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:29:39AM -0400, Andy W wrote:
Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at
all possible,
well, of course not.
or at least implicit directionality?
huh?
the idea is to avoid suggesting a _particular_ direction (too strongly).
So, with t
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:05 PM Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03:20AM +0300, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
> > Consider 'parent' and 'child': 2nd sounds like 'replica' or 'clone'.
> >
> not bad. we might have a winner right off the bat. ^^
>
> Many
this/that?
here/there?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
brother/sister?
itchy/scratchy?
More seriously, why do we have to give them such generic names?
Aren't they individually and explicitly given a meaningful name already anyway?
E.g.
Channel work
Endpoint :work-remote:
...
Endpoint :work-local:
...
and that would na
Maybe getting away from the fundamental idea of directionality isn't at all
possible, or at least implicit directionality? Consider this - whenever
there is a sync operation, regardless of which direction that sync occurs,
there is (perhaps) a direction of flow of traffic, at the lowest of levels,
Setting aside my thoughts on the practical impact renaming silliness...
How about left/right? This is how StrongSwan (an IPSEC) client handles it.
There may be no directionality implied, but there's still a concept of "stuff
here" and "stuff there".
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, at 6:04 AM, Oswald Budd
On Tue, Jul 14 2020, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
> I'm not a fan of the renaming movement solely for sake of virtual
> signalling but here it makes sense.
>
> - remote / local
>
> Better carries the semantics and it’s short.
In my setup master is local.
__
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03:20AM +0300, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
Consider 'parent' and 'child': 2nd sounds like 'replica' or 'clone'.
not bad. we might have a winner right off the bat. ^^
Many wrote:
"remote" and "local" could work.
nice try, but nope - while this terminology reflects the
How about male / female?
...sorry ...
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:35:19PM -0700, MGC wrote:
'remote/local' sounds good to me.
--
/gc
On Jul 14 06:57 AM, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
I'm not a fan of the renaming movement solely for sake of
virtual signalling but here it makes sense.
- remote / lo
'remote/local' sounds good to me.
--
/gc
On Jul 14 06:57 AM, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
I'm not a fan of the renaming movement solely for sake of
virtual signalling but here it makes sense.
- remote / local
Better carries the semantics and it’s short. I have such piece of config
for all my mailbo
I'm not a fan of the renaming movement solely for sake of
virtual signalling but here it makes sense.
- remote / local
Better carries the semantics and it’s short. I have such piece of config
for all my mailboxes since I started using mbsync:
[...]
Channel work
Master :work-remote:
Slave :work-lo
> On Jul 13, 2020, at 15:06 , Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
>
> with all the recent commotion also in the tech world, i'm revisiting the idea
> to deprecate 'slave' terminology ('master' is much less problematic, but
> would probably go as well for symmetry).
>
> i never really liked it anywa
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:07 PM Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> i never really liked it anyway once i started to think about it
> (obviously, quite a while after i introduced it ...), because it
> suggests a strict hierarchy that isn't really there, as bi-directional
> synchronization is supported.
>
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:06:22PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the problem is that this equally applies to many potential replacements,
> like 'replica'. maybe 'clone' is better, as it's more easily associated with
> having its own life, and git already established the term. but what to put
with all the recent commotion also in the tech world, i'm revisiting the
idea to deprecate 'slave' terminology ('master' is much less
problematic, but would probably go as well for symmetry).
i never really liked it anyway once i started to think about it
(obviously, quite a while after i intr
16 matches
Mail list logo
