Circling back after more inputs, if we use this as a description of the
proposals:
1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with ???, 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".
Then by my read of the responses we have consensus to do #2, #3, and #4.
They were not controversial. JIRAs and patches will be welcome. Seems
pretty clear committers and PMC will approve and do what is needed to
complete any necessary deprecation cycle.
Regarding #1, opinion is mixed. By my read I also think committers and PMC
will approve patches and do what is needed to complete any necessary
deprecation cycle for this one too. Enough PMC members expressed support to
successfully vote on a release (although not if there were to be opposing
votes). If a contributor were to open a JIRA and provide patches for this,
there would be more discussion. There is no consensus, yet, on what
replacement term is best. Personally, I can accept Zheng's recent
suggestion of "controller". I can see how syllable count matters.
I don't mean this summary to close the conversation. It is only a
checkpoint.
If anyone reading this has an opinion they do not wish to express
publically, you are welcome to write to priv...@hbase.apache.org to state
your opinion and the PMC will of course respectfully listen to it.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:47 PM zheng wang <18031...@qq.com> wrote:
> I like the controller.
>
>
> Coordinator is a bit long for me to write and speak.
> Manager and Admin is used somewhere yet in HBase.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> 发件人: "Andrew Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org>;
> 发送时间: 2020年6月26日(星期五) 上午9:08
> 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
>
>
>
> > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
>
> Oooooh... I like AdminServer. AdminServer (serving admin functions) and
> RegionServer (serving region data).
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:46 PM Andrey Elenskiy
> <andrey.elens...@arista.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" that
> is clear
> > and
> > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
> >
> > There are also:
> > - captain (sounds pretty close to "master" without the negative side
> and it
> > should be relatable around the world)
> > - conductor (as in orchestra)
> > - controller (in kafka controller assigns partitions)
> > - RegionDriver (more relevant to what it's actually doing in hbase and
> > borrowed from PlacementDrive of TiKV)
> > - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > How about "manager"?
> > >
> > > (It would help me if folks could explain what is lacking in
> > "coordinator".)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 13:32 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> palomino...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -0/+1/+1/+1
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m the one who asked whether ‘master’ is safe to use
> without ‘slave’
> > > in
> > > > > the private list.
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m still not convinced that it is really necessary
> and I do not
> > think
> > > > > other words like ‘coordinator’ can fully describe the
> role of HMaster
> > > in
> > > > > HBase. HBase is more than 10 years old. In the context
> of HBase, the
> > > word
> > > > > ‘HMaster’ has its own meaning. Changing the name will
> hurt our users
> > > and
> > > > > make them confusing, especially for us non native
> English speakers...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator"
> that is clear
> > > and
> > > > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
> > > >
> > > > Stack <st...@duboce.net>于2020年6月25日 周四06:34写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > +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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> ------------------&nbsp;原始邮件&nbsp;------------------
> > > > > > > > > > 发件人:&nbsp;"Andrew
> Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > >
> 发送时间:&nbsp;2020年6月23日(星期二) 凌晨5:24
> > > > > > > > > > 收件人:&nbsp;"Hbase-User"<
> user@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > > 抄送:&nbsp;"dev"<
> d...@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > > 主题:&nbsp;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
> > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; For most of the
> proposals (slave -&gt; worker,
> > blacklist
> > > > > -&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > denylist,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; whitelist-&gt;
> allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding).
> > Denylist
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > acceptlist even
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; have the advantage
> of being clearer than the terms
> > > they're
> > > > > > > > > replacing.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; However, I'm not
> convinced about changing "master" to
> > > > > > > > "coordinator",
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; something similar.
> Unlike "slave", which is negative
> > in
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > context,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; "master" has many
> definitions, including some common
> > > ones
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; appear problematic.
> See
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>; > >
> > > > > > > &gt <
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>>; >;
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; examples. In
> particular, the progression of an artisan
> > > was
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; "apprentice" to
> "journeyman" to "master". A master
> > > smith,
> > > > > > > > carpenter,
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; artist would run a
> shop managing lots of workers and
> > > > > > apprentices
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; hope to become
> masters of their own someday. So
> > "master"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "worker"
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; still go together.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; Since it's the least
> problematic term, and by far the
> > > > > hardest
> > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; change (both within
> HBase and with effects on
> > downstream
> > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; Ambari), I'm -0
> (nonbinding) on changing "master".
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; Geoffrey
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020
> at 1:32 PM Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; <
> rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; +1 to
> renaming.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Software Engineering SMTS |
> > > > > > Salesforce
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> Mobile: 213
> > > 422
> > > > > > 9052
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; On Mon, Jun
> 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser <
> > > > > > > > els...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; +1
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; On
> 6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; We should change our use of these
> > terms.
> > > We
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > equally or more
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; clear
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; in
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; what we are trying to convey where they
> > > are
> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; That they have been used historically
> > is
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > if the advantage
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; gain from using them through that
> > shared
> > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > outweighs the
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; potential
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; friction they add. They make me
> > > personally
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > enthusiastic about
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; contributing. That's enough friction
> > for
> > > me
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > advocate removing
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; them.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; AFAICT reworking our replication stuff
> > in
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > "active" and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; "passive"
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; clusters did not result in a big spike
> > of
> > > > > folks
> > > > > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > > > > new questions
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> about
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; where authority for state was.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew
> > > Purtell
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; In response to renewed attention at
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Foundation
> > > > > > > > > > toward addressing
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; culturally problematic language and
> > > > terms
> > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > > used in technical
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; documentation and discussion,
> > several
> > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > have begun
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; or
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; made proposals, or started work
> > along
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > lines.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; The HBase PMC began its own
> > > discussion
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > private@
> > > > > > > > > > on June 9, 2020
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> with an
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; observation of this activity and
> > this
> > > > > > > > suggestion:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; There is a renewed push back
> > against
> > > > > > classic
> > > > > > > > > > technology industry
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; terms
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> that
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; have negative modern connotations.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; In the case of HBase, the following
> > > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > > might be proposed:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; - Coordinator instead of master
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; - Worker instead of slave
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Recommendations for these
> > additional
> > > > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > > also come up in
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; type of discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; - Accept list instead of white list
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; - Deny list instead of black list
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Unfortunately we have Master all
> > over
> > > > our
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > base, baked into
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; various
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; APIs and configuration variable
> > > names,
> > > > so
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > the necessary
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; changes
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; amount to a new major release and
> > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > > cycle. It could well
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; be
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> worth
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; it in the long run. We exist only
> > as
> > > > long
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > draw a willing and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; sufficient contributor community.
> > It
> > > > also
> > > > > > > > > wouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > be great to have
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; an
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; activist fork appear somewhere,
> > even
> > > if
> > > > > > > > unlikely
> > > > > > > > > > to be successful.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Relevant JIRAs are:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > HBASE-12677 <
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>; > >
> > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Update
> > > > > replication
> > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > clarify terminology
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > HBASE-13852 <
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>; > >
> > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Replace
> > > > > > master-slave
> > > > > > > > > > terminology in book, site,
> and javadoc
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; with a
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> more
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; modern
> > > > vocabulary
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > HBASE-24576 <
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>; > >
> > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Changing
> > > > > > "whitelist"
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "blacklist" in our docs and
> project
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; In response to this proposal, a
> > > member
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > asked if the term
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; 'master' used by itself would be
> > > fine,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > only have use of
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> 'slave'
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; in replication documentation and
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > addressed. In
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; response
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; to
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; this question, others on the PMC
> > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > even if only
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; 'master'
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; used, in this context it is still a
> > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; For folks who are surprised or
> > > lacking
> > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the details of
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; discussion, one PMC member offered
> > a
> > > > link
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > draft RFC as
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> background:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; There was general support for
> > > removing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > "master" / "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> from
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; our code base and using the terms
> > > > > > > "coordinator"
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > "leader" instead.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; In
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; context of replication, "worker"
> > > makes
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > and perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> "destination"
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; or "follower" would be more
> > > appropriate
> > > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; One PMC member's thoughts on
> > language
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > non-native English
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; speakers
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; worth including in its entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; While words like
> > > > > blacklist/whitelist/slave
> > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; negative
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; references, word master might not
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > impact for non
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; native
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; English speakers like myself where
> > > the
> > > > > > > literal
> > > > > > > > > > translation to my
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; mother
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; tongue does not have this same bad
> > > > > > > connotation.
> > > > > > > > > > Replacing all
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; references
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; for word *master *on our
> > > docs/codebase
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > > > effort, I guess
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; such
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; a
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; decision would be more suitable for
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > > speakers folks,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; maybe we should consider the
> > opinion
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > contributors from that
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; ethinic
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; minority as well?
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; These are good questions for public
> > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; We have a consensus in the PMC, at
> > > this
> > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > is supportive of
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> making
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; the above discussed terminology
> > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > > > we also have
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; concerns
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; about what it would take to
> > > accomplish
> > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > changes. Several
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; on
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; PMC offered support in the form of
> > > > cycles
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > review pull requests
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; patches, and two PMC members
> > > > > offered&nbsp;
> > > > > > > > > > personal bandwidth for
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; creating
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; releasing new code lines as needed
> > to
> > > > > > > complete
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Unfortunately, the terms "master"
> > and
> > > > > > > "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > > appear throughout
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; our
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> code
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; base in class names, user facing
> > API
> > > > > > subject
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > our project
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; guidelines, and configuration
> > > variable
> > > > > > names,
> > > > > > > > > > which are also
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; implicated
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; by
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; compatibility guidelines given the
> > > > impact
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > changes to operators
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; operations. The changes being
> > > discussed
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > backwards compatible
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; changes and cannot be executed with
> > > > > > swiftness
> > > > > > > > > > while simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; preserving compatibility. There
> > must
> > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle. First,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> must
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; tag all implicated public API and
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > variables as
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; deprecated,
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; and release HBase 3 with these
> > > > > deprecations
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > place. Then, we must
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; undertake rename and removal as
> > > > > > appropriate,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > release the result
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; as
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; HBase 4.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; One PMC member raised a question in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > included here in
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> entirety:
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Are we willing to commit to rolling
> > > > > through
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > major versions at a
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; pace
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; that's necessary to make this
> > > > transition
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > swift
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; reasonably possible?
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; This is a question for all of us.
> > For
> > > > the
> > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > would supervise
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; effort, perhaps contribute to it,
> > and
> > > > > > > certainly
> > > > > > > > > > vote on the release
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; candidates. For contributors and
> > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > contributors, who would
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> provide
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; the necessary patches. For
> > > committers,
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > be required to
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; review
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; commit the relevant changes.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Although there has been some
> > initial
> > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > there is no
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; singular
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; proposal, or plan, or set of
> > > decisions
> > > > > made
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > this time. Wrestling
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; with
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; this concern and the competing
> > > concerns
> > > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > with addressing it
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; (motivation for change versus
> > > > motivation
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > compatibility) is a
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; task
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; for
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt; all of us to undertake (or not) in
> > > > public
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > dev@
> > > > > > > > > > and user@.
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among
> the crosstalk, meaning torn
> > > from
> > > > > > > truth's
> > > > > > > > > > decrepit hands
> > > > > > > > > > &nbsp;&nbsp; - A23,
> Crosstalk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
> - A23, Crosstalk
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
