You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@hbase.apache.org by Bryan Beaudreault <bb...@hubspot.com.INVALID> on 2021/09/29 12:25:27 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original 3
JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing an
initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate in 3
and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that
change.
If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <busbey@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 <ndimiduk@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > xucang@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
> > <
> > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean
> > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > <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>
> > > <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > <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>
> > > <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>
> > > <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
> <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
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Just to be clear Bryan there is no issue with you asking questions or
reviving discussion. I was just trying to summarize for you because I do
believe we had a fairly clear outcome.
Because there has been no additional comment in a long time -- i.e. it's
now lazy consensus -- I felt I could be more definitive in the restatement
of the summary.
We can certainly reopen the discussion if I have mischaracterized the
consensus, or if there isn't actually a consensus, or if anyone has changed
their position in the intervening months.
Otherwise, we are just waiting for patch contribution...
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:02 AM Bryan Beaudreault
<bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry Andrew, I think I misinterpreted aspects of your last summary. It
> seemed like maybe there were still open questions and I was mostly just
> curious if something had been (or should be) captured anywhere else. Your
> new summary helps clarify the conclusion, thanks for providing it.
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bryan,
> >
> > Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
> > perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
> > conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
> > controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master",
> does
> > not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
> > case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
> > like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
> > welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
> > the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the
> change
> > to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
> > support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
> > deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes
> impact
> > one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
> >
> > What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
> >
> > Actual patches.
> >
> > It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
> > <bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> > > don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> > > Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the
> original
> > 3
> > > JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing
> > an
> > > initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate
> > in 3
> > > and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make
> that
> > > change.
> > >
> > > If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for
> posterity.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <
> busbey@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 <
> > > ndimiduk@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > > > xucang@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
> > > > > <
> > > > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11
> Sean
> > > > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > > > <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
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > <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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Just to be clear Bryan there is no issue with you asking questions or
reviving discussion. I was just trying to summarize for you because I do
believe we had a fairly clear outcome.
Because there has been no additional comment in a long time -- i.e. it's
now lazy consensus -- I felt I could be more definitive in the restatement
of the summary.
We can certainly reopen the discussion if I have mischaracterized the
consensus, or if there isn't actually a consensus, or if anyone has changed
their position in the intervening months.
Otherwise, we are just waiting for patch contribution...
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:02 AM Bryan Beaudreault
<bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry Andrew, I think I misinterpreted aspects of your last summary. It
> seemed like maybe there were still open questions and I was mostly just
> curious if something had been (or should be) captured anywhere else. Your
> new summary helps clarify the conclusion, thanks for providing it.
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bryan,
> >
> > Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
> > perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
> > conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
> > controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master",
> does
> > not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
> > case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
> > like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
> > welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
> > the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the
> change
> > to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
> > support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
> > deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes
> impact
> > one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
> >
> > What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
> >
> > Actual patches.
> >
> > It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
> > <bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> > > don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> > > Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the
> original
> > 3
> > > JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing
> > an
> > > initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate
> > in 3
> > > and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make
> that
> > > change.
> > >
> > > If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for
> posterity.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <
> busbey@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 <
> > > ndimiduk@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > > > xucang@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
> > > > > <
> > > > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11
> Sean
> > > > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> > <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > >
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > > > <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
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > <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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Bryan Beaudreault <bb...@hubspot.com.INVALID>.
Sorry Andrew, I think I misinterpreted aspects of your last summary. It
seemed like maybe there were still open questions and I was mostly just
curious if something had been (or should be) captured anywhere else. Your
new summary helps clarify the conclusion, thanks for providing it.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
> perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
> conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
> controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master", does
> not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
> case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
> like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
> welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
> the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the change
> to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
> support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
> deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes impact
> one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
>
> What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
>
> Actual patches.
>
> It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
> <bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> > don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> > Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original
> 3
> > JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing
> an
> > initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate
> in 3
> > and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that
> > change.
> >
> > If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <busbey@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 <
> > ndimiduk@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > > xucang@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
> > > > <
> > > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean
> > > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> >
> > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> >
> > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > > <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
> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> <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
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
> - A23, Crosstalk
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Bryan Beaudreault <bb...@hubspot.com.INVALID>.
Sorry Andrew, I think I misinterpreted aspects of your last summary. It
seemed like maybe there were still open questions and I was mostly just
curious if something had been (or should be) captured anywhere else. Your
new summary helps clarify the conclusion, thanks for providing it.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
> perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
> conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
> controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master", does
> not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
> case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
> like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
> welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
> the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the change
> to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
> support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
> deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes impact
> one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
>
> What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
>
> Actual patches.
>
> It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
> <bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> > don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> > Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original
> 3
> > JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing
> an
> > initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate
> in 3
> > and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that
> > change.
> >
> > If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <busbey@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 <
> > ndimiduk@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > > xucang@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
> > > > <
> > > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean
> > > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> >
> > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> >
> > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt>
> <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852>>
> > > <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>
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> >
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576>>
> > > <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
> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html>
> > > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> <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
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
> - A23, Crosstalk
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Bryan,
Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master", does
not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the change
to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes impact
one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
Actual patches.
It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
<bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original 3
> JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing an
> initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate in 3
> and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that
> change.
>
> If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity.
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <busbey@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 <
> ndimiduk@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > xucang@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
> > > <
> > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean
> > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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
> > <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
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Bryan,
Let me paraphrase the resolution of this discussion from the PMC
perspective: We are, broadly speaking, supportive of changes to improve
conscious language choices. Our project uses some words with known
controversial context. Unfortunately one word in particular, "master", does
not have a consensus that it is or isn't a valid term of art, and in any
case is deeply embedded in API and configuration contexts. Other terms,
like "slave", have consensus on removal. We would, generally speaking,
welcome for review any patches that change conscious language choices for
the better. The proposer of the patch can explain the context of the change
to help make the case it should be applied. The PMC would also provide
support, in the form of release management and voting, for necessary
deprecation-release-removal-release cycles where termonology changes impact
one or more of our compatibility guidelines.
What has been missing since this thread closed with this conclusion?
Actual patches.
It's quite easy to advocate someone *else* make language changes.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:26 AM Bryan Beaudreault
<bb...@hubspot.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry to revive a very old thread, but I just stumbled across this and
> don't see a clear resolution. I wonder if we should create a JIRA from
> Andrew's summary and treat that as an umbrella encompassing the original 3
> JIRAs? I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are rumblings of doing an
> initial 3.0 release, and I see above there was a proposal to deprecate in 3
> and release in 4. I imagine we're slowly running out of time to make that
> change.
>
> If I missed a JIRA somewhere, maybe we can put a link here for posterity.
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 private@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 <18...@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"<apurtell@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"<dev@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.elenskiy@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 <busbey@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 <
> ndimiduk@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > palomino219@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 <stack@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 <
> > > xucang@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
> > > <
> > > > ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean
> > > Busbey <busbey@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 <18031031@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"<apurtell@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"<
> > > dev@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 <
> > > > > > > > gjacoby@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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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.shah@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > elserj@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
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > apurtell@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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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
> > <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
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk