+1/+1/+1/+1 where hbase3 adds the deprecation and hbase4 follows hbase3
soon after sounds good to me. I'm up for working on this.
S
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM Xu Cang <xuc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Strongly agree with what Nick said here:
>
> " From my perspective, we gain nothing as a project or as a community be
> willfully retaining use of language that is well understood to be
> problematic or hurtful,.... On the contrary, we have much to gain by
> encouraging
> contributions from as many people as possible."
>
> +1 to Andrew's proposal.
>
> It might be good to have a source of truth web page or README file for
> developers and users to refer to regarding all naming transitions. It's
> going to help both developers changing the code and users looking for some
> answers online that use old namings.
>
> Xu
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to make sure I am emphatically clear that "master" by
> itself
> > > is not okay if the context is the same as what would normally be a
> > > master/slave context. Furthermore our use of master is clearly such a
> > > context.
> >
> >
> > I agree: to me “Master”, as in “HMaster” caries with it the master/slave
> > baggage. As an alternative, I prefer the term “coordinator” over
> “leader”.
> > Thus we would have daemons called “coordinator” and “region server”.
> >
> > To me, “master” as in “master branch” does not carry the same baggage,
> but
> > I’m also in favor changing the name of our default branch to a word that
> is
> > less conflicted. I see nothing that we gain as a community by continuing
> to
> > use this word.
> >
> > It seems to me we have, broadly speaking, consensus around making *some*
> > > changes. I haven't seen a strong push for "break everything in the name
> > of
> > > expediency" (I would personally be fine with this). So barring
> additional
> > > discussion that favors breaking changes, current approaches should
> > comport
> > > with our existing project compatibility goals.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could stop talking about what-ifs and look at actual practical
> > > examples? If anyone is currently up for doing the work of a PR we can
> > look
> > > at for one of these?
> > >
> > > If folks would prefer we e.g. just say "we should break whatever we
> need
> > to
> > > in 3.0.0 to make this happen" then it would be good to speak up.
> > Otherwise
> > > likely we would be done with needed changes circa hbase 4, probably
> late
> > > 2021 or 2022.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 03:03 zheng wang <18031...@qq.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, master is ok if not used with slave together.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -1/+1/+1/+1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > 发件人: "Andrew Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org>;
> > > > 发送时间: 2020年6月23日(星期二) 凌晨5:24
> > > > 收件人: "Hbase-User"<user@hbase.apache.org>;
> > > > 抄送: "dev"<d...@hbase.apache.org>;
> > > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In observing something like voting happening on this thread to
> express
> > > > alignment or not, it might be helpful to first, come up with a list
> of
> > > > terms to change (if any), and then propose replacements,
> individually.
> > So
> > > > far we might break this apart into four proposals:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with ??? ("coordinator" is one option),
> > > this
> > > > one has by far the most significant impact and both opinion and
> > > > interpretation on this one is mixed.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Replace "slave" with "follower", seems to impact the cross cluster
> > > > replication subsystem only.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Replace "black list" with "deny list".
> > > >
> > > > 4. Replace "white list" with "accept list".
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you are inclined to respond with a +1/-1/+0/-0, it would
> be
> > > > useful to give such an indication for each line item above. Or, offer
> > > > alternative proposals. Or, if you have a singular opinion, that's
> fine
> > > too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM 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
> > > > > <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@.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrew
> > > >
> > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> truth's
> > > > decrepit hands
> > > > - A23, Crosstalk
> > >
> >
>
