Let us look at what *slave* mean According to the merriam-webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave Definition of *slave* (Entry 1 of 4) 1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3: a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another 4: DRUDGE <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drudge>, TOILER <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toiler> so in the context of Hbase, number *3* is valid. In other words, a component which is directly responsive to another, another being *master*. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave> LinkedIn * https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAEAAAAWh2gBxianrbJd6zP6AcPCCdOABUrV8Pw <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAEAAAAWh2gBxianrbJd6zP6AcPCCdOABUrV8Pw>* *Disclaimer:* Use it at your own risk. Any and all responsibility for any loss, damage or destruction of data or any other property which may arise from relying on this email's technical content is explicitly disclaimed. The author will in no case be liable for any monetary damages arising from such loss, damage or destruction. On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 22:09, Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@apache.org> wrote: > For most of the proposals (slave -> worker, blacklist -> denylist, > whitelist-> allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding). Denylist and acceptlist even > have the advantage of being clearer than the terms they're replacing. > > However, I'm not convinced about changing "master" to "coordinator", or > something similar. Unlike "slave", which is negative in any context, > "master" has many definitions, including some common ones which do not > appear problematic. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master > for > examples. In particular, the progression of an artisan was from > "apprentice" to "journeyman" to "master". A master smith, carpenter, or > artist would run a shop managing lots of workers and apprentices who would > hope to become masters of their own someday. So "master" and "worker" can > still go together. > > Since it's the least problematic term, and by far the hardest term to > change (both within HBase and with effects on downstream projects such as > Ambari), I'm -0 (nonbinding) on changing "master". > > Geoffrey > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:32 PM Rushabh Shah > <rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > > > +1 to renaming. > > > > > > Rushabh Shah > > > > - Software Engineering SMTS | Salesforce > > - > > - Mobile: 213 422 9052 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On 6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > We should change our use of these terms. We can be equally or more > > clear > > > in > > > > what we are trying to convey where they are present. > > > > > > > > That they have been used historically is only useful if the advantage > > we > > > > gain from using them through that shared context outweighs the > > potential > > > > friction they add. They make me personally less enthusiastic about > > > > contributing. That's enough friction for me to advocate removing > them. > > > > > > > > AFAICT reworking our replication stuff in terms of "active" and > > "passive" > > > > clusters did not result in a big spike of folks asking new questions > > > about > > > > where authority for state was. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> In response to renewed attention at the Foundation toward addressing > > > >> culturally problematic language and terms often used in technical > > > >> documentation and discussion, several projects have begun > discussions, > > > or > > > >> made proposals, or started work along these lines. > > > >> > > > >> The HBase PMC began its own discussion on private@ on June 9, 2020 > > > with an > > > >> observation of this activity and this suggestion: > > > >> > > > >> There is a renewed push back against classic technology industry > terms > > > that > > > >> have negative modern connotations. > > > >> > > > >> In the case of HBase, the following substitutions might be proposed: > > > >> > > > >> - Coordinator instead of master > > > >> > > > >> - Worker instead of slave > > > >> > > > >> Recommendations for these additional substitutions also come up in > > this > > > >> type of discussion: > > > >> > > > >> - Accept list instead of white list > > > >> > > > >> - Deny list instead of black list > > > >> > > > >> Unfortunately we have Master all over our code base, baked into > > various > > > >> APIs and configuration variable names, so for us the necessary > changes > > > >> amount to a new major release and deprecation cycle. It could well > be > > > worth > > > >> it in the long run. We exist only as long as we draw a willing and > > > >> sufficient contributor community. It also wouldn’t be great to have > an > > > >> activist fork appear somewhere, even if unlikely to be successful. > > > >> > > > >> Relevant JIRAs are: > > > >> > > > >> - HBASE-12677 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677 > > >: > > > >> Update replication docs to clarify terminology > > > >> - HBASE-13852 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852 > > >: > > > >> Replace master-slave terminology in book, site, and javadoc > with a > > > more > > > >> modern vocabulary > > > >> - HBASE-24576 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576 > > >: > > > >> Changing "whitelist" and "blacklist" in our docs and project > > > >> > > > >> In response to this proposal, a member of the PMC asked if the term > > > >> 'master' used by itself would be fine, because we only have use of > > > 'slave' > > > >> in replication documentation and that is easily addressed. In > response > > > to > > > >> this question, others on the PMC suggested that even if only > 'master' > > is > > > >> used, in this context it is still a problem. > > > >> > > > >> For folks who are surprised or lacking context on the details of > this > > > >> discussion, one PMC member offered a link to this draft RFC as > > > background: > > > >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html > > > >> > > > >> There was general support for removing the term "master" / "hmaster" > > > from > > > >> our code base and using the terms "coordinator" or "leader" instead. > > In > > > the > > > >> context of replication, "worker" makes less sense and perhaps > > > "destination" > > > >> or "follower" would be more appropriate terms. > > > >> > > > >> One PMC member's thoughts on language and non-native English > speakers > > is > > > >> worth including in its entirety: > > > >> > > > >> While words like blacklist/whitelist/slave clearly have those > negative > > > >> references, word master might not have the same impact for non > native > > > >> English speakers like myself where the literal translation to my > > mother > > > >> tongue does not have this same bad connotation. Replacing all > > references > > > >> for word *master *on our docs/codebase is a huge effort, I guess > such > > a > > > >> decision would be more suitable for native English speakers folks, > and > > > >> maybe we should consider the opinion of contributors from that > ethinic > > > >> minority as well? > > > >> > > > >> These are good questions for public discussion. > > > >> > > > >> We have a consensus in the PMC, at this time, that is supportive of > > > making > > > >> the above discussed terminology changes. However, we also have > > concerns > > > >> about what it would take to accomplish meaningful changes. Several > on > > > the > > > >> PMC offered support in the form of cycles to review pull requests > and > > > >> patches, and two PMC members offered personal bandwidth for > creating > > > and > > > >> releasing new code lines as needed to complete a deprecation cycle. > > > >> > > > >> Unfortunately, the terms "master" and "hmaster" appear throughout > our > > > code > > > >> base in class names, user facing API subject to our project > > > compatibility > > > >> guidelines, and configuration variable names, which are also > > implicated > > > by > > > >> compatibility guidelines given the impact of changes to operators > and > > > >> operations. The changes being discussed are not backwards compatible > > > >> changes and cannot be executed with swiftness while simultaneously > > > >> preserving compatibility. There must be a deprecation cycle. First, > we > > > must > > > >> tag all implicated public API and configuration variables as > > deprecated, > > > >> and release HBase 3 with these deprecations in place. Then, we must > > > >> undertake rename and removal as appropriate, and release the result > as > > > >> HBase 4. > > > >> > > > >> One PMC member raised a question in this context included here in > > > entirety: > > > >> > > > >> Are we willing to commit to rolling through the major versions at a > > pace > > > >> that's necessary to make this transition as swift as > > > >> reasonably possible? > > > >> > > > >> This is a question for all of us. For the PMC, who would supervise > the > > > >> effort, perhaps contribute to it, and certainly vote on the release > > > >> candidates. For contributors and potential contributors, who would > > > provide > > > >> the necessary patches. For committers, who would be required to > review > > > and > > > >> commit the relevant changes. > > > >> > > > >> Although there has been some initial discussion, there is no > singular > > > >> proposal, or plan, or set of decisions made at this time. Wrestling > > with > > > >> this concern and the competing concerns involved with addressing it > > > >> (motivation for change versus motivation for compatibility) is a > task > > > for > > > >> all of us to undertake (or not) in public on dev@ and user@. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
