You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> on 2020/07/13 19:57:09 UTC
Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation
Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and 'blacklist'.
It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact is
that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects throughout
the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
sub-projects and documentation:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of the
activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
reply to this message.
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Not a comprehensive list. I am currently going after the low-hanging fruit:
* master
* slave
* blacklist
* whitelist
I have not yet considered anything beyond these words yet. If and as we
find additional words, we should add them to the JIRA issue.
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Do we have a list for terms considered offensive ?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> 'blacklist'.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
> > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
> > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact
> is
> > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> throughout
> > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
> >
> > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> > have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> > sub-projects and documentation:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of
> the
> > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
> > reply to this message.
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Do we have a list for terms considered offensive ?
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and 'blacklist'.
>
> It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
> used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
> they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact is
> that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects throughout
> the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
>
> So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> sub-projects and documentation:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of the
> activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
> reply to this message.
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
It sounds to me that we are getting involved more in politics than computer
science.
Be it as it may, it would be good to understand that every change we make
will incur a cost for many of our downstream users. Change their build
systems to use a different branch name, testing, qualifying. I would
encourage you to keep that in mind as well.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and 'blacklist'.
>
> It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
> used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
> they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact is
> that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects throughout
> the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
>
> So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> sub-projects and documentation:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of the
> activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
> reply to this message.
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Hi Clebert,
There absolutely isn't general consensus on the terminology used :).
Like you (I infer from what you wrote), I don't see how the terms would be
offensive. They have a clear, well documented, meaning for many decades and
they clearly apply to computers and services, not humans. Anybody with a
minimum of education in computer science knows (or should know) that.
Because of the costs incurred by downstream users with no real benefit. I
am personally a strong -1 for such a change. I am also disappointed that
the issue is not discussed based on its merits, but based on the potential
emotional reaction of an unspecified group that may or may not have
anything to do with the project. The proposed change is also racist and
wrong, based on the fact that it excludes a lot of groups from the
conversation and is just a knee jerk reaction to current events in a tiny
part of the world called the USA. ActiveMQ serves the whole world for more
than a decade. Probably this will look silly in a few years, but the damage
would be already done by then. I would be impressed if the proponent of the
change would analyse the implications, but I won't hold my breath.
Just because it had to be said,
Hadrian
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:12 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>
>
> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
> slave without being offensive.
>
> But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> opinion to the side there.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> generally
> > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> perfect,
> > but it covers most cases.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> other
> > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
> > the
> > > broker.
> > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> > could
> > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jdanek@redhat.com
> >
> > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > usage
> > > in
> > > > > activeMQ.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > replicating
> > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> dies.
> > > The
> > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at
> > > >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > > I'd suggest one of
> > > >
> > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> follower’
> > > >
> > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > >
> > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
> > the
> > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > > reaping
> > > > zombies).
> > > > --
> > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > > Jiri Daněk
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:48 PM Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
> > Justin,
> >
> > I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
> > "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
> > do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology.
> And
> > they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for
> > resilience and a 100% uptime goal.
> >
> > After the introduction of the network of brokers feature/concept,
> ActiveMQ
> > supports many deployment topologies, rendering the whole master/slave
> > concept kinda useless. In addition to that, its dependence on database
> > locks makes it a bit finicky and certainly not scalable. I don't think
> I've
> > seen a master/slave deployment in the past at least 8 years and I
> > personally discourage its use.
> >
> > So, if anybody wants to do any good to the AMQ project and community, my
> > recommendation is to just get rid of master/slave completely. I don't
> think
> > anybody uses it anyway anymore. That would be useful to know actually, so
> > if anybody uses master/slave, just give a nod.
> >
>
> I'd simply remove the pages from the web site and consider the problem
> solved.
> Less time spent...
>
>
> >
> > My $0.02,
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
> > > between the configured role and the running role?
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be
> considered
> > a
> > > > slave without being offensive.
> > > >
> > > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my
> personal
> > > > opinion to the side there.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > > > generally
> > > > > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active"
> and
> > > > > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > > > perfect,
> > > > > but it covers most cases.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > > > > bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower`
> or
> > > > other
> > > > > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep
> the
> > HA
> > > > > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running
> role
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > broker.
> > > > > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration
> > role
> > > > > could
> > > > > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> > > jdanek@redhat.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ha
> > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <
> xenoamess@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in
> > every
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > activeMQ.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > > > > replicating
> > > > > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the
> master
> > > > dies.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> > > master
> > > > > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking at
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > > > > > I'd suggest one of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> > > > follower’
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I
> heard
> > it
> > > > > > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a
> > bit
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing
> > children,
> > > > > > reaping
> > > > > > > zombies).
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > > > > > Jiri Daněk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Justin,
>
> I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
> "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
> do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And
> they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for
> resilience and a 100% uptime goal.
>
> After the introduction of the network of brokers feature/concept, ActiveMQ
> supports many deployment topologies, rendering the whole master/slave
> concept kinda useless. In addition to that, its dependence on database
> locks makes it a bit finicky and certainly not scalable. I don't think I've
> seen a master/slave deployment in the past at least 8 years and I
> personally discourage its use.
>
> So, if anybody wants to do any good to the AMQ project and community, my
> recommendation is to just get rid of master/slave completely. I don't think
> anybody uses it anyway anymore. That would be useful to know actually, so
> if anybody uses master/slave, just give a nod.
>
I'd simply remove the pages from the web site and consider the problem
solved.
Less time spent...
>
> My $0.02,
> Hadrian
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
> > between the configured role and the running role?
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> > >
> > >
> > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered
> a
> > > slave without being offensive.
> > >
> > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> > > opinion to the side there.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > > generally
> > > > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> > > > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > > perfect,
> > > > but it covers most cases.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > > > bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> > > other
> > > > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the
> HA
> > > > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > broker.
> > > > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration
> role
> > > > could
> > > > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> > jdanek@redhat.com
> > > >
> > > > ha
> > > > > scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in
> every
> > > > usage
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > activeMQ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > > > replicating
> > > > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> > > dies.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> > master
> > > > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > > > > I'd suggest one of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> > > follower’
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard
> it
> > > > > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a
> bit
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing
> children,
> > > > > reaping
> > > > > > zombies).
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > > > > Jiri Daněk
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> >
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Justin,
I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including
"active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to
do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And
they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for
resilience and a 100% uptime goal.
After the introduction of the network of brokers feature/concept, ActiveMQ
supports many deployment topologies, rendering the whole master/slave
concept kinda useless. In addition to that, its dependence on database
locks makes it a bit finicky and certainly not scalable. I don't think I've
seen a master/slave deployment in the past at least 8 years and I
personally discourage its use.
So, if anybody wants to do any good to the AMQ project and community, my
recommendation is to just get rid of master/slave completely. I don't think
anybody uses it anyway anymore. That would be useful to know actually, so
if anybody uses master/slave, just give a nod.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
> between the configured role and the running role?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> >
> >
> > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
> > slave without being offensive.
> >
> > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> > opinion to the side there.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > generally
> > > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> > > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > perfect,
> > > but it covers most cases.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > > bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> > other
> > > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> > > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
> of
> > > the
> > > > broker.
> > > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> > > could
> > > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> jdanek@redhat.com
> > >
> > > ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > > usage
> > > > in
> > > > > > activeMQ.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > > replicating
> > > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> > dies.
> > > > The
> > > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> master
> > > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > > > I'd suggest one of
> > > > >
> > > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> > follower’
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > > > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > > >
> > > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit
> of
> > > the
> > > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > > > reaping
> > > > > zombies).
> > > > > --
> > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > > > Jiri Daněk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Martin Schlapfer <ma...@gmail.com>.
FWIW the organization I work for uses the terms active and standby, if I
may add that to the suggestion list.
On 7/14/2020 8:36 AM, Justin Bertram wrote:
> Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
> between the configured role and the running role?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>>
>>
>> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
>> slave without being offensive.
>>
>> But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
>> opinion to the side there.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
>> generally
>>> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
>>> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
>> perfect,
>>> but it covers most cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
>>> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
>> other
>>>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
>>>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
>>> the
>>>> broker.
>>>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
>>> could
>>>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
>>>>
>>>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jdanek@redhat.com
>>> ha
>>>> scritto:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
>>> usage
>>>> in
>>>>>> activeMQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
>>>> replicating
>>>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
>> dies.
>>>> The
>>>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
>>>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at
>>>>>
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
>>>>> I'd suggest one of
>>>>>
>>>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
>> follower’
>>>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
>>>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
>>> the
>>>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
>>>> reaping
>>>>> zombies).
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>>>>> Jiri Daněk
>>>>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish
between the configured role and the running role?
Justin
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>
>
> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
> slave without being offensive.
>
> But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> opinion to the side there.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> generally
> > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> perfect,
> > but it covers most cases.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> other
> > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
> > the
> > > broker.
> > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> > could
> > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jdanek@redhat.com
> >
> > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > usage
> > > in
> > > > > activeMQ.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > replicating
> > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> dies.
> > > The
> > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at
> > > >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > > I'd suggest one of
> > > >
> > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> follower’
> > > >
> > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > >
> > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
> > the
> > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > > reaping
> > > > zombies).
> > > > --
> > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > > Jiri Daněk
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 agree and well stated. I’ll kick off a message to get the ball moving on a draft proposal for consideration
> On Jul 25, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
> many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help
> out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I
> think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There
> should be an agreement on what terms will be changed (and to what), how we
> will handle backwards compatibility and deprecation/removal going forward,
> etc.
>
> So far I've seen a lot of negative feedback about this proposal (more so on
> the private list). I would hate to see people volunteer and spend a lot of
> time making changes only to have a binding -1 vote come in which would veto
> a code change.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:35 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
>> compatibility and deprecate old terms.
>>
>> We need volunteers.
>>
>>
>> <Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
>>> secondary, etc)
>>> Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over
>>> for the primary,
>>> and it is generally non-deterministic.
>>>
>>> IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for
>>> nodes that receive
>>> replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things.
>>> This would allow
>>> the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n
>>> nodes)
>>> primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
>>>
>>>
>>> With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
>>>
>>> ‘active’+‘primary’
>>> ‘active’+‘replica’
>>> ’standby’+’primary’
>>> ’standby’+’replica’
>>>
>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>
>>>> On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered
>> a
>>>> slave without being offensive.
>>>>
>>>> But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
>>>> opinion to the side there.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
>>> generally
>>>>> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
>>>>> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
>>> perfect,
>>>>> but it covers most cases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
>>>>> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
>>> other
>>>>>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
>>>>>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> broker.
>>>>>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
>>>>> could
>>>>>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
>> jdanek@redhat.com
>>>>
>>>>> ha
>>>>>> scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
>>>>> usage
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> activeMQ.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
>>>>>> replicating
>>>>>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
>>> dies.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
>> master
>>>>>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming
>>> ,
>>>>>>> I'd suggest one of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
>> follower’
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
>>>>>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
>>>>>> reaping
>>>>>>> zombies).
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>>>>>>> Jiri Daněk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Btw if someone took a lead and made the change I wouldn’t ever disrespect
the person and I wouldn’t care what term was used.
The terms was a more discussion but if someone took the lead and done it No
one should mind IMHO.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
> many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help
> out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I
> think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There
> should be an agreement on what terms will be changed (and to what), how we
> will handle backwards compatibility and deprecation/removal going forward,
> etc.
>
> So far I've seen a lot of negative feedback about this proposal (more so on
> the private list). I would hate to see people volunteer and spend a lot of
> time making changes only to have a binding -1 vote come in which would veto
> a code change.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:35 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
> > compatibility and deprecate old terms.
> >
> > We need volunteers.
> >
> >
> > <Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke>
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
> > > secondary, etc)
> > > Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take
> over
> > > for the primary,
> > > and it is generally non-deterministic.
> > >
> > > IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for
> > > nodes that receive
> > > replicated data would be a good thing because they are different
> things.
> > > This would allow
> > > the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > > master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby
> (n
> > > nodes)
> > > primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
> > >
> > >
> > > With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
> > >
> > > ‘active’+‘primary’
> > > ‘active’+‘replica’
> > > ’standby’+’primary’
> > > ’standby’+’replica’
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be
> considered
> > a
> > > > slave without being offensive.
> > > >
> > > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my
> personal
> > > > opinion to the side there.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > > generally
> > > >> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active"
> and
> > > >> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > > perfect,
> > > >> but it covers most cases.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Justin
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > > >> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> > > other
> > > >>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the
> HA
> > > >>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >>> broker.
> > > >>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration
> role
> > > >> could
> > > >>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> > jdanek@redhat.com
> > > >
> > > >> ha
> > > >>> scritto:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > > >> usage
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>> activeMQ.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > >>> replicating
> > > >>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> > > dies.
> > > >>> The
> > > >>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> > master
> > > >>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Looking at
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming
> > > ,
> > > >>>> I'd suggest one of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> > follower’
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard
> it
> > > >>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > > >>> reaping
> > > >>>> zombies).
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > >>>> Jiri Daněk
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Compatibility wise we have no other option other than deprecate. The only
question I have is if we should log.warn when those configuration are in
use.
To what terms primary and replica sounds good to me.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:58 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
> many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help
> out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I
> think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There
> should be an agreement on what terms will be changed (and to what), how we
> will handle backwards compatibility and deprecation/removal going forward,
> etc.
>
> So far I've seen a lot of negative feedback about this proposal (more so on
> the private list). I would hate to see people volunteer and spend a lot of
> time making changes only to have a binding -1 vote come in which would veto
> a code change.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:35 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
> > compatibility and deprecate old terms.
> >
> > We need volunteers.
> >
> >
> > <Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke>
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
> > > secondary, etc)
> > > Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take
> over
> > > for the primary,
> > > and it is generally non-deterministic.
> > >
> > > IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for
> > > nodes that receive
> > > replicated data would be a good thing because they are different
> things.
> > > This would allow
> > > the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > > master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby
> (n
> > > nodes)
> > > primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
> > >
> > >
> > > With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
> > >
> > > ‘active’+‘primary’
> > > ‘active’+‘replica’
> > > ’standby’+’primary’
> > > ’standby’+’replica’
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be
> considered
> > a
> > > > slave without being offensive.
> > > >
> > > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my
> personal
> > > > opinion to the side there.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > > generally
> > > >> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active"
> and
> > > >> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > > perfect,
> > > >> but it covers most cases.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Justin
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > > >> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> > > other
> > > >>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the
> HA
> > > >>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >>> broker.
> > > >>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration
> role
> > > >> could
> > > >>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> > jdanek@redhat.com
> > > >
> > > >> ha
> > > >>> scritto:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > > >> usage
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>> activeMQ.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > > >>> replicating
> > > >>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> > > dies.
> > > >>> The
> > > >>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> > master
> > > >>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Looking at
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming
> > > ,
> > > >>>> I'd suggest one of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> > follower’
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard
> it
> > > >>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > > >>> reaping
> > > >>>> zombies).
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > >>>> Jiri Daněk
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
As I stated before I think this is a positive change and aligns with what
many other projects and companies are already doing. I am willing to help
out when I can and I think some others would help too. But in my opinion I
think we need a consensus on the plan before we should do anything. There
should be an agreement on what terms will be changed (and to what), how we
will handle backwards compatibility and deprecation/removal going forward,
etc.
So far I've seen a lot of negative feedback about this proposal (more so on
the private list). I would hate to see people volunteer and spend a lot of
time making changes only to have a binding -1 vote come in which would veto
a code change.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:35 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
> compatibility and deprecate old terms.
>
> We need volunteers.
>
>
> <Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
> > secondary, etc)
> > Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over
> > for the primary,
> > and it is generally non-deterministic.
> >
> > IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for
> > nodes that receive
> > replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things.
> > This would allow
> > the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
> >
> > For example:
> > master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n
> > nodes)
> > primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
> >
> >
> > With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
> >
> > ‘active’+‘primary’
> > ‘active’+‘replica’
> > ’standby’+’primary’
> > ’standby’+’replica’
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> > >
> > >
> > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered
> a
> > > slave without being offensive.
> > >
> > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> > > opinion to the side there.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> > generally
> > >> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> > >> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> > perfect,
> > >> but it covers most cases.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Justin
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > >> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> > other
> > >>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> > >>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role
> of
> > >> the
> > >>> broker.
> > >>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> > >> could
> > >>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> > >>>
> > >>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <
> jdanek@redhat.com
> > >
> > >> ha
> > >>> scritto:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> > >> usage
> > >>> in
> > >>>>> activeMQ.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > >>> replicating
> > >>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> > dies.
> > >>> The
> > >>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the
> master
> > >>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Looking at
> > >>>>
> > >>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming
> > ,
> > >>>> I'd suggest one of
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader /
> follower’
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > >>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit
> of
> > >> the
> > >>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > >>> reaping
> > >>>> zombies).
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > >>>> Jiri Daněk
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
The replacement of these becomes a heavy lift work as we need to keep
compatibility and deprecate old terms.
We need volunteers.
<Friday joke>can we offer commit status to anyone doing it?</Friday joke>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:51 PM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary,
> secondary, etc)
> Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over
> for the primary,
> and it is generally non-deterministic.
>
> IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for
> nodes that receive
> replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things.
> This would allow
> the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
>
> For example:
> master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n
> nodes)
> primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
>
>
> With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
>
> ‘active’+‘primary’
> ‘active’+‘replica’
> ’standby’+’primary’
> ’standby’+’replica’
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
> >
> >
> > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
> > slave without being offensive.
> >
> > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> > opinion to the side there.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is
> generally
> >> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> >> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not
> perfect,
> >> but it covers most cases.
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> >> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or
> other
> >>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> >>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
> >> the
> >>> broker.
> >>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> >> could
> >>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> >>>
> >>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jdanek@redhat.com
> >
> >> ha
> >>> scritto:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> >> usage
> >>> in
> >>>>> activeMQ.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> >>> replicating
> >>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master
> dies.
> >>> The
> >>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> >>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at
> >>>>
> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming
> ,
> >>>> I'd suggest one of
> >>>>
> >>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
> >>>>
> >>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> >>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
> >>>>
> >>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
> >> the
> >>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> >>> reaping
> >>>> zombies).
> >>>> --
> >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> >>>> Jiri Daněk
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
> --
Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary, secondary, etc)
Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over for the primary,
and it is generally non-deterministic.
IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for nodes that receive
replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things. This would allow
the full truth table to be indicated at any given time.
For example:
master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n nodes)
primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes)
With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of:
‘active’+‘primary’
‘active’+‘replica’
’standby’+’primary’
’standby’+’replica’
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
>
>
> TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
> slave without being offensive.
>
> But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
> opinion to the side there.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally
>> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
>> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect,
>> but it covers most cases.
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
>> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other
>>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
>>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
>> the
>>> broker.
>>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
>> could
>>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
>>>
>>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>
>> ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
>> usage
>>> in
>>>>> activeMQ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
>>> replicating
>>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
>>> The
>>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
>>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at
>>>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
>>>> I'd suggest one of
>>>>
>>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
>>>>
>>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
>>>> somewhere in the context of database replication.
>>>>
>>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
>> the
>>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
>>> reaping
>>>> zombies).
>>>> --
>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>>>> Jiri Daněk
>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I would Prefer avoiding passive and active.
TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a
slave without being offensive.
But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal
opinion to the side there.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally
> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect,
> but it covers most cases.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other
> > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of
> the
> > broker.
> > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role
> could
> > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
> >
> > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every
> usage
> > in
> > > > activeMQ.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> > replicating
> > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
> > The
> > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> > >
> > > Looking at
> > >
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > > I'd suggest one of
> > >
> > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
> > >
> > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> > >
> > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of
> the
> > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> > reaping
> > > zombies).
> > > --
> > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > > Jiri Daněk
> > >
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally
called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and
"passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect,
but it covers most cases.
Justin
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscinodf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other
> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of the
> broker.
> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role could
> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
>
> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage
> in
> > > activeMQ.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> replicating
> > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
> The
> > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> >
> > Looking at
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > I'd suggest one of
> >
> > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
> >
> > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> >
> > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the
> > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> reaping
> > zombies).
> > --
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > Jiri Daněk
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Domenico Francesco Bruscino <br...@gmail.com>.
I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other
terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA
configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of the
broker.
For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role could
acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover.
Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> ha
scritto:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
> > activeMQ.
> >
>
> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is replicating
> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. The
> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
>
> Looking at
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> I'd suggest one of
>
> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
>
> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> somewhere in the context of database replication.
>
> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the
> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, reaping
> zombies).
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> Jiri Daněk
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>.
"If you are using Artemis replication, your workers have nothing to lose,
except their chains!" :D
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 14:00 Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In Artemis, slave is replicating
> > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
> This situation seems actually quite suitable for "capitalist/worker"
>
> Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 下午7:42写道：
>
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage
> in
> > > activeMQ.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is
> replicating
> > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
> The
> > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> > coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
> >
> > Looking at
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> > I'd suggest one of
> >
> > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
> >
> > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> > somewhere in the context of database replication.
> >
> > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the
> > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children,
> reaping
> > zombies).
> > --
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> > Jiri Daněk
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
> In Artemis, slave is replicating
> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies.
This situation seems actually quite suitable for "capitalist/worker"
Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 下午7:42写道：
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
> > activeMQ.
> >
>
> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is replicating
> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. The
> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
> coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
>
> Looking at
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
> I'd suggest one of
>
> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
>
> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
> somewhere in the context of database replication.
>
> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the
> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, reaping
> zombies).
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
> Jiri Daněk
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
> activeMQ.
>
Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is replicating
the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. The
"worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master
coordinates and all work is done on slaves.
Looking at
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming,
I'd suggest one of
‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’
I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it
somewhere in the context of database replication.
Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of the
echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, reaping
zombies).
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Jiri Daněk
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every usage in
activeMQ.
And that is reasonable.
But I haven't found a very good word to replace "master"...
Maybe we can use "capitalists"? But that might be too far...
Any suggestions about this?
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
My last post was supposed to say "For Artemis, maybe we deprecate in 2.x
and then remove in 3.x"
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:43 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
> that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
> possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
> primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think live/backup
> certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also makes
> sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
>
> My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
> compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration and
> terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially which
> would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
> For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
>
> Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
> much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology this
> is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in 5.17
> anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
> OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
> slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break compatibility
> with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it would
> work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
> then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
> that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed with
> those older terms laying around.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They did?
>> OK, then I have no more doubts.
>>
>> Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
>>
>> > For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
>> there's
>> > no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for
>> example.
>> >
>> >
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi.
>> > > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
>> > might
>> > > argue with github first.
>> > > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have
>> far
>> > > more user than ActiveMQ.
>> > >
>> > > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
>> > >
>> > > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
>> > private
>> > > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
>> necessarily,
>> > > so
>> > > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok
>> with
>> > > that
>> > > > in ActiveMQ.
>> > > >
>> > > > Bruce
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms
>> 'primary,'
>> > > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
>> > "master"
>> > > > and
>> > > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already
>> use
>> > > > "live"
>> > > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master"
>> and
>> > > > "slave"
>> > > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like
>> the
>> > > fact
>> > > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
>> underlying
>> > > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
>> "secondary,"
>> > > etc.
>> > > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer
>> > which
>> > > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests,
>> documentation,
>> > > etc.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Justin
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
>> bruce.snyder@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
>> world,
>> > I
>> > > > feel
>> > > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
>> > > > ActiveMQ
>> > > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
>> > > > > 'blacklist'.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they
>> > have
>> > > > been
>> > > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
>> terms
>> > > are
>> > > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would
>> > prefer
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
>> simple
>> > > > fact
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of
>> the
>> > > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
>> > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this
>> > > point.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this
>> > > work. I
>> > > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span
>> > all
>> > > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own
>> fork
>> > > of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to
>> > the
>> > > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this
>> effort
>> > > > please
>> > > > > > reply to this message.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > perl -e 'print
>> > > > > >
>> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> > > > );'
>> > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > perl -e 'print
>> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> > );'
>> > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 7/15/20 3:48 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> Actually this may be easier than I thought. I forgot that OpenWire doesn’t
> include property names so we might be able to get away with just renaming
> things and everything would work fine and be compatible as long as
> properties are in the same order. It needs to be looked at more to verify
> of course.
Agreed, took a quick look and from the wire level perspective the older
clients wouldn't care what the broker libraries called those fields as
they are decoded in relative order by the broker marshaling code. You'd
need to change the set calls in both the versions in activemq-client and
in activemq-openwire-legacy but that should still only constitute a
broker level change (and new client release that accompanies it).
Possible there's some case where it matters but it isn't immediately
apparent.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary, that makes sense to me as I think making sure everything is
>> backwards compatible for existing users is important. (not just for
>> openwire but all config, etc) There would need to be some work done in the
>> broker to know which properties to use based on the negotiated openwire
>> version and be able to fall back to old variables and config if needed.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:51 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way
>>> to go.
>>> keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both
>>> sensible and necessary.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon
>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
>>>> that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
>>>> possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
>>>> primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think
>>> live/backup
>>>> certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also
>>> makes
>>>> sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
>>>>
>>>> My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
>>>> compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration
>>> and
>>>> terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially
>>> which
>>>> would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
>>>> For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
>>>>
>>>> Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
>>>> much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology
>>> this
>>>> is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in
>>> 5.17
>>>> anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
>>>> OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
>>>> slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break
>>> compatibility
>>>> with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it
>>> would
>>>> work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
>>>> then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
>>>> that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed
>>> with
>>>> those older terms laying around.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> They did?
>>>>> OK, then I have no more doubts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
>>>>> there's
>>>>>> no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for
>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>> If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then
>>> you
>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> argue with github first.
>>>>>>> after all their default git branch name is "master", and github
>>> have
>>>>> far
>>>>>>> more user than ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>> list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
>>>>> necessarily,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm
>>> ok
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> in ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <
>>> jbertram@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Among other things the Jira [1] says:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms
>>> 'primary,'
>>>>>>>>> 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
>>>>>> "master"
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation
>>> already
>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> "live"
>>>>>>>>> and "backup" in many places although some instances of
>>> "master" and
>>>>>>>> "slave"
>>>>>>>>> do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I
>>> like
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>> that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>> functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
>>>>> "secondary,"
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>> are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit
>>> longer
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests,
>>> documentation,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
>>>>> bruce.snyder@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
>>>>> world,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>> that action should be taken to change any such terms in all
>>> the
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>>>>>> projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist'
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> 'blacklist'.
>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long
>>> they
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
>>>>> terms
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I
>>> would
>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> that changing these terms will not change the functionality
>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent
>>> projects
>>>>>>>>> throughout
>>>>>>>>>> the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on
>>> this
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>> So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate
>>> this
>>>>>>> work. I
>>>>>>>>>> have not assigned any components simply because this should
>>> span
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> sub-projects and documentation:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my
>>> own
>>>>> fork
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull
>>> request to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this
>>> effort
>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>> reply to this message.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>>>>>> );'
>>>>>>>>>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>>>>>>
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>>>> );'
>>>>>>>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>>>>>>>
--
Tim Bish
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Actually this may be easier than I thought. I forgot that OpenWire doesn’t
include property names so we might be able to get away with just renaming
things and everything would work fine and be compatible as long as
properties are in the same order. It needs to be looked at more to verify
of course.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary, that makes sense to me as I think making sure everything is
> backwards compatible for existing users is important. (not just for
> openwire but all config, etc) There would need to be some work done in the
> broker to know which properties to use based on the negotiated openwire
> version and be able to fall back to old variables and config if needed.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:51 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way
>> to go.
>> keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both
>> sensible and necessary.
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon
>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
>> > that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
>> > possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
>> > primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think
>> live/backup
>> > certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also
>> makes
>> > sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
>> >
>> > My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
>> > compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration
>> and
>> > terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially
>> which
>> > would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
>> > For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
>> >
>> > Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
>> > much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology
>> this
>> > is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in
>> 5.17
>> > anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
>> > OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
>> > slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break
>> compatibility
>> > with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it
>> would
>> > work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
>> > then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
>> > that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed
>> with
>> > those older terms laying around.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > They did?
>> > > OK, then I have no more doubts.
>> > >
>> > > Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
>> > >
>> > > > For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
>> > > there's
>> > > > no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for
>> example.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Justin
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi.
>> > > > > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then
>> you
>> > > > might
>> > > > > argue with github first.
>> > > > > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github
>> have
>> > > far
>> > > > > more user than ActiveMQ.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
>> > > > private
>> > > > > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
>> > > necessarily,
>> > > > > so
>> > > > > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm
>> ok
>> > > with
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > in ActiveMQ.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bruce
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <
>> jbertram@apache.org>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms
>> 'primary,'
>> > > > > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
>> > > > "master"
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation
>> already
>> > > use
>> > > > > > "live"
>> > > > > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of
>> "master" and
>> > > > > > "slave"
>> > > > > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I
>> like
>> > > the
>> > > > > fact
>> > > > > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
>> > > underlying
>> > > > > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
>> > > "secondary,"
>> > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit
>> longer
>> > > > which
>> > > > > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests,
>> documentation,
>> > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Justin
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
>> > > bruce.snyder@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
>> > > world,
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > feel
>> > > > > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all
>> the
>> > > > > > ActiveMQ
>> > > > > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist'
>> and
>> > > > > > > 'blacklist'.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long
>> they
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > been
>> > > > > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
>> > > terms
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I
>> would
>> > > > prefer
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
>> > > simple
>> > > > > > fact
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent
>> projects
>> > > > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on
>> this
>> > > > > point.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate
>> this
>> > > > > work. I
>> > > > > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should
>> span
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my
>> own
>> > > fork
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull
>> request to
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this
>> effort
>> > > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > reply to this message.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > perl -e 'print
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> > > > > > );'
>> > > > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > perl -e 'print
>> > > > > >
>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> > > > );'
>> > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Gary, that makes sense to me as I think making sure everything is backwards
compatible for existing users is important. (not just for openwire but all
config, etc) There would need to be some work done in the broker to know
which properties to use based on the negotiated openwire version and be
able to fall back to old variables and config if needed.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:51 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way
> to go.
> keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both
> sensible and necessary.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon
> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
> > that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
> > possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
> > primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think live/backup
> > certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also makes
> > sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
> >
> > My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
> > compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration
> and
> > terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially
> which
> > would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
> > For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
> >
> > Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
> > much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology
> this
> > is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in 5.17
> > anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
> > OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
> > slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break
> compatibility
> > with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it
> would
> > work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
> > then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
> > that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed
> with
> > those older terms laying around.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > They did?
> > > OK, then I have no more doubts.
> > >
> > > Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
> > >
> > > > For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
> > > there's
> > > > no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for
> example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then
> you
> > > > might
> > > > > argue with github first.
> > > > > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github
> have
> > > far
> > > > > more user than ActiveMQ.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
> > > > private
> > > > > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
> > > necessarily,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok
> > > with
> > > > > that
> > > > > > in ActiveMQ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruce
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <
> jbertram@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms
> 'primary,'
> > > > > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
> > > > "master"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation
> already
> > > use
> > > > > > "live"
> > > > > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of
> "master" and
> > > > > > "slave"
> > > > > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I
> like
> > > the
> > > > > fact
> > > > > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
> > > underlying
> > > > > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
> > > "secondary,"
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit
> longer
> > > > which
> > > > > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests,
> documentation,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Justin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
> > > bruce.snyder@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
> > > world,
> > > > I
> > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all
> the
> > > > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > > > > > > 'blacklist'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long
> they
> > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
> > > terms
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would
> > > > prefer
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
> > > simple
> > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent
> projects
> > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on
> this
> > > > > point.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate
> this
> > > > > work. I
> > > > > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should
> span
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my
> own
> > > fork
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull
> request to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this
> effort
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > reply to this message.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > > > > >
> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > > > );'
> > > > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > > >
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > );'
> > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think for openwire, rename and a change in openwire version is the way to go.
keeping the old terms around for backward compatibility is both
sensible and necessary.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:42, Christopher Shannon
<ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
> that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
> possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
> primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think live/backup
> certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also makes
> sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
>
> My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
> compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration and
> terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially which
> would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
> For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
>
> Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
> much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology this
> is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in 5.17
> anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
> OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
> slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break compatibility
> with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it would
> work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
> then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
> that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed with
> those older terms laying around.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They did?
> > OK, then I have no more doubts.
> >
> > Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
> >
> > > For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
> > there's
> > > no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
> > > might
> > > > argue with github first.
> > > > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have
> > far
> > > > more user than ActiveMQ.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
> > > private
> > > > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
> > necessarily,
> > > > so
> > > > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok
> > with
> > > > that
> > > > > in ActiveMQ.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> > > > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
> > > "master"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already
> > use
> > > > > "live"
> > > > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
> > > > > "slave"
> > > > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like
> > the
> > > > fact
> > > > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
> > underlying
> > > > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
> > "secondary,"
> > > > etc.
> > > > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer
> > > which
> > > > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation,
> > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Justin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
> > bruce.snyder@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
> > world,
> > > I
> > > > > feel
> > > > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
> > > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > > > > > 'blacklist'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
> > terms
> > > > are
> > > > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would
> > > prefer
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
> > simple
> > > > > fact
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of
> > the
> > > > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this
> > > > point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this
> > > > work. I
> > > > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span
> > > all
> > > > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own
> > fork
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to
> > > the
> > > > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > reply to this message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > > > >
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > > );'
> > > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > );'
> > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I agree that it is time to make the change. Justin made a good point in
that we should make sure to pick the best and most descriptive names
possible for the use case. Whether that is follower/leader,
primary/secondary, primary/replica, live/backup, etc. I think live/backup
certainly makes a lot of sense for Artemis. For 5.x I think it also makes
sense but primary/secondary is fine too.
My main concern here is how do we handle the technical issues with
compatibility? For example, do we just deprecate the old configuration and
terminology to not break users or do we rip it out entirely initially which
would be a breaking change for users that needs to be well communicated?
For Artemis, maybe we deprecated in 2.x and in 3.x.
Another thing is some things will be easy to change and others not so
much. For something like the LevelDB store that uses the terminology this
is easy as we can just remove it entirely as we plan to remove it in 5.17
anyways. However, one thing that does seem like a challenge to fix is
OpenWire. For example the BrokerInfo command actually uses the terms
slaveBroker and masterBroker. Renaming these would now break compatibility
with brokers running older versions of 5.x. I think the only way it would
work is to keep the terms around for the older versions of OpenWire and
then generate a new version that has them renamed which I'm not sure if
that is or isn't acceptable as the software would still be distributed with
those older terms laying around.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They did?
> OK, then I have no more doubts.
>
> Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
>
> > For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so
> there's
> > no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
> > might
> > > argue with github first.
> > > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have
> far
> > > more user than ActiveMQ.
> > >
> > > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> > >
> > > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
> > private
> > > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms
> necessarily,
> > > so
> > > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok
> with
> > > that
> > > > in ActiveMQ.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> > > > >
> > > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> > > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
> > "master"
> > > > and
> > > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already
> use
> > > > "live"
> > > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
> > > > "slave"
> > > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like
> the
> > > fact
> > > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the
> underlying
> > > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary,"
> "secondary,"
> > > etc.
> > > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer
> > which
> > > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation,
> > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <
> bruce.snyder@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's
> world,
> > I
> > > > feel
> > > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
> > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > > > > 'blacklist'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these
> terms
> > > are
> > > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would
> > prefer
> > > > that
> > > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The
> simple
> > > > fact
> > > > > is
> > > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of
> the
> > > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> > > > > throughout
> > > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this
> > > point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this
> > > work. I
> > > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span
> > all
> > > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own
> fork
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to
> > the
> > > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
> > > > please
> > > > > > reply to this message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > > >
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > );'
> > > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
They did?
OK, then I have no more doubts.
Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:42写道：
> For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so there's
> no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
> might
> > argue with github first.
> > after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
> > more user than ActiveMQ.
> >
> > Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> >
> > > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the
> private
> > > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily,
> > so
> > > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with
> > that
> > > in ActiveMQ.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> > > >
> > > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> > > >
> > > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> > > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> > > >
> > > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for
> "master"
> > > and
> > > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use
> > > "live"
> > > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
> > > "slave"
> > > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the
> > fact
> > > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
> > > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary,"
> > etc.
> > > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer
> which
> > > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation,
> > etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world,
> I
> > > feel
> > > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
> > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > > > 'blacklist'.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they
> have
> > > been
> > > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms
> > are
> > > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would
> prefer
> > > that
> > > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple
> > > fact
> > > > is
> > > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> > > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> > > > throughout
> > > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this
> > point.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this
> > work. I
> > > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span
> all
> > > > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > > >
> > > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to
> the
> > > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
> > > please
> > > > > reply to this message.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > >
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > );'
> > > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
For what it's worth, GitHub is changing the default branch name so there's
no argument to be had with them as you suggest. See here [1] for example.
Justin
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:24 PM Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
> If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you might
> argue with github first.
> after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
> more user than ActiveMQ.
>
> Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
>
> > Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the private
> > list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily,
> so
> > if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with
> that
> > in ActiveMQ.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> > >
> > > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> > >
> > > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> > > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> > >
> > > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master"
> > and
> > > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use
> > "live"
> > > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
> > "slave"
> > > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the
> fact
> > > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
> > > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary,"
> etc.
> > > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer which
> > > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation,
> etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I
> > feel
> > > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
> > ActiveMQ
> > > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > > 'blacklist'.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have
> > been
> > > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms
> are
> > > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer
> > that
> > > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple
> > fact
> > > is
> > > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> > > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> > > throughout
> > > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this
> point.
> > > >
> > > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this
> work. I
> > > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> > > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > >
> > > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork
> of
> > > the
> > > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> > > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
> > please
> > > > reply to this message.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> > > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
However, I agree to change "slave" to "worker".
That is reasonable.
Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:17写道：
> Hi.
> If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you
> might argue with github first.
> after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
> more user than ActiveMQ.
>
> Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
>
>> Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the private
>> list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily, so
>> if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with
>> that
>> in ActiveMQ.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
>> >
>> > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
>> >
>> > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
>> > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
>> >
>> > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master"
>> and
>> > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use
>> "live"
>> > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
>> "slave"
>> > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the
>> fact
>> > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
>> > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary,"
>> etc.
>> > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer which
>> > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I
>> feel
>> > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
>> ActiveMQ
>> > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
>> > 'blacklist'.
>> > >
>> > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have
>> been
>> > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
>> > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer
>> that
>> > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple
>> fact
>> > is
>> > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
>> > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
>> > throughout
>> > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
>> > >
>> > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work.
>> I
>> > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
>> > > sub-projects and documentation:
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > >
>> > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of
>> > the
>> > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
>> > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
>> please
>> > > reply to this message.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > perl -e 'print
>> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> );'
>> > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> perl -e 'print
>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
Hi.
If you really think "master" is something you cannot accept, then you might
argue with github first.
after all their default git branch name is "master", and github have far
more user than ActiveMQ.
Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午11:03写道：
> Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the private
> list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily, so
> if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with that
> in ActiveMQ.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
> >
> > Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> >
> > > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> > 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
> >
> > I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master"
> and
> > "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use
> "live"
> > and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and
> "slave"
> > do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the fact
> > that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
> > functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary," etc.
> > are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer which
> > isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation, etc.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I
> feel
> > > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the
> ActiveMQ
> > > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> > 'blacklist'.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have
> been
> > > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> > > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer
> that
> > > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple
> fact
> > is
> > > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> > > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> > throughout
> > > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
> > >
> > > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> > > have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> > > sub-projects and documentation:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > >
> > > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of
> > the
> > > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> > > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort
> please
> > > reply to this message.
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Someone mentioned use of the terms 'primary' and 'backup' in the private
list and I liked that suggestion. I'm not wed to any terms necessarily, so
if Artemis is already using the terms 'live' and 'backup', I'm ok with that
in ActiveMQ.
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:42 PM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
>
> Among other things the Jira [1] says:
>
> > 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
> 'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
>
> I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master" and
> "slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use "live"
> and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and "slave"
> do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the fact
> that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
> functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary," etc.
> are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer which
> isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation, etc.
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> > that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> > projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and
> 'blacklist'.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
> > used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> > offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
> > they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact
> is
> > that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> > features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects
> throughout
> > the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
> >
> > So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> > have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> > sub-projects and documentation:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of
> the
> > activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> > ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
> > reply to this message.
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> > http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments
and documentation
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Thanks for kicking this off, Bruce.
Among other things the Jira [1] says:
> 'master' and 'slave' should be replaced with the terms 'primary,'
'secondary,' 'tertiary,' etc.
I would offer "live" and "backup" as suitable replacements for "master" and
"slave" respectively. The Artemis code and documentation already use "live"
and "backup" in many places although some instances of "master" and "slave"
do exist. Aside from the fact that they're already in use I like the fact
that they're relatively short and they clearly capture the underlying
functional semantic. In my opinion the terms "primary," "secondary," etc.
are actually a bit vague and they're certainly quite a bit longer which
isn't a huge deal but it adds up when writing tests, documentation, etc.
Justin
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the racial charged nature of certain terms in today's world, I feel
> that action should be taken to change any such terms in all the ActiveMQ
> projects. Examples include 'master,' 'slave,' 'whitelist' and 'blacklist'.
>
> It doesn't matter where these terms originated or how long they have been
> used in computer science. I have friends who feel that these terms are
> offensive and present a barrier to entry to some. So, I would prefer that
> they no longer be used anywhere in the ActiveMQ project. The simple fact is
> that changing these terms will not change the functionality of the
> features. Furthermore, compared to many other prominent projects throughout
> the open source community, ActiveMQ is late to the game on this point.
>
> So, I have created the following JIRA Issue to encapsulate this work. I
> have not assigned any components simply because this should span all
> sub-projects and documentation:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> I have already begun work on this effort in a branch in my own fork of the
> activemq repo. This is to facilitate an eventual pull request to the
> ActiveMQ project. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort please
> reply to this message.
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>