You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> on 2020/06/17 19:07:21 UTC
[DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
other ideas, if you have them.
Billie
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
I am in favor of making a change and would be happy to help.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>
> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
>
> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> other ideas, if you have them.
>
> Billie
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Hi Bob,
I sympathize with your intuition that the proposals aren't likely to
add value. I even somewhat share the concern. HOWEVER, I'm still in
favor of seriously considering these changes, because it does matter
to some people, and I do not believe the proposed changes are likely
to cause harm that can't be mitigated. Even if the potential value is
low, I see the risks as being similarly low (if we're careful). So, I
don't see any reason to not be supportive of those who want to see
these changes. I would encourage you to challenge your own intuitions
a little bit, to try to understand that this is important to some in
the community, and if you want to get involved, to try to find ways to
be constructive and helpful with respect to your criticisms of the
proposed changes.
If you only object because you don't think it is worthwhile, then I
don't see any legitimate basis in your email for blocking the work of
motivated volunteer contributors who do think it is worthwhile.
If, on the other hand, you think this is likely to cause harm to
Accumulo or its community, elaborating on the actual harm you think
will occur could be a way to positively contribute to the discussion,
rather than to simply object to the proposals of others as "stupid".
For example, you mention "defects". Can you name any specific
"defects" that this is likely to cause that hasn't already been
considered in this thread that would need to be mitigated or should
seriously inhibit the proposed changes from being made?
If you wish to meaningfully help the project make good decisions by
actively participating with code contributions, reviews, and raising
constructive criticisms to proposals, then you are welcome and
encouraged to do so (and I have suggested ways you can help by
elaborating on your concerns about the risks). However, if you only
wish to jump on the list to object to other's proposed actions by
calling them "stupid" without offering helpful alternatives, or
cool-headed critiques, I would suggest that this may not be the open
source community for you.
Respectfully,
Christopher
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM THORMAN, ROBERT D <rt...@att.com> wrote:
>
> I have been associated with the Accumulo project since its inception and many other AF/LF projects for decades. I have collaborated with many of you since the Bigtable paper came out and the NSA started the project which was release to the OS community as Cloudbase. My early adoption and use of Accumulo has result in many deployments and operations in both public and private spaces. Never in my 30 year experience as a software engineer working with people from vase ethnical backgrounds has the issue of racism with respect to the term "master" and "slave" ever came up. Some of my favorite people in the world are different color than I am and I have never felt anything but admiration for their contributions to the OS communities, yet this issue has never even been mentioned before. This is a classic case of creating an issue that doesn't exist.
>
> So, please allow my dissenting opinion to be on record: I think this is the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed in my 30 years of software engineering. The sheer number of defects that will be caused by this semantic change borders on insanity in my book. There is zero value add to this and the resentment it will cause will be worse than the original miss-perception. Inexcusable!
>
> I have a multi-racial family and love every person regardless of their ethnicity or color. But this is stupid.
>
> Bob Thorman
> Former Accumulo project member
>
> On 6/18/20, 7:27 AM, "Brian Loss" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to the ranked choice idea. I also think it makes sense to give GitHub and/or ASF a little time to select a default/main branch name. It would be nice to keep with the standard for the ecosystem since it appears GitHub is switching away from master as a default branch name too.
>
> There does appear to be a reference to master in the client API: Instance.getMasterLocations(). I believe, according to semver, we’ll have to deprecate that but cannot remove it until version 3.
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:22 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of the change.
> >
> > We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to do
> > the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to determine
> > the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
> > minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
> > bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
> > communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
> > I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main" and
> > "default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems to
> > have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the mainstream.
> > "main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
> > another week or two before we know for sure.
> >
> > For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
> > internal names and references can be changed relatively easily without
> > disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
> > locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
> > names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
> > a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
> > do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
> > incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
> > 3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
> >
> > I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
> > server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
> > selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
> > we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
> > names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
> > can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
> > we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
> > opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
> > from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the work,
> > so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>
> >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
> >> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
> >> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
> >> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
> >> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
> >>
> >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
> >> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> >> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>
> >> Billie
> >>
> >> [1]: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ACCUMULO-2D2844&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=tVgyCjxnNiJ0cjUcKRQFKA&m=TCfcV22hAngZI3hopGJOOy0PB2aBU6xHf09Oh53AGq0&s=epFUuh4HcZiRx0n3JWNIUZKHaa6BfhpATbFpzrncx44&e=
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by "THORMAN, ROBERT D" <rt...@att.com>.
Nathan,
I'm sorry, but changing code semantics will not fix the human condition that's responsible for racism. I wish it would, we need that solution. Is this a step in the right direction, I doubt it. You're creating more angst that you're solving.
On 6/18/20, 8:04 AM, "Nathaniel Freeman" <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert
A short but sweet reply.
I've not been involved actively in this project for long, heck I haven't
really contributed more than a few fringe things in associating projects so
I'm sure your valuable contributions over the years have pushed the project
further than could of without your help.
That being said, I think I'm aligned with the view that if even one person
feels angst about the naming convention it's worth changing to make a
better world.
I really like how the whole community is working out how to do this in a
measured manner and not a knee jerk e.g. waiting to find out what a new
standard is, identifying how to implement it without disruption to the
customers (API versions).
A friend once told me,
"just because people don't witness something personally, it doesn't mean it
doesn't happen".
Thank you to everyone working this through in a cohesive manner.
Nat
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 08:48 THORMAN, ROBERT D <rt...@att.com> wrote:
> I have been associated with the Accumulo project since its inception and
> many other AF/LF projects for decades. I have collaborated with many of
> you since the Bigtable paper came out and the NSA started the project which
> was release to the OS community as Cloudbase. My early adoption and use of
> Accumulo has result in many deployments and operations in both public and
> private spaces. Never in my 30 year experience as a software engineer
> working with people from vase ethnical backgrounds has the issue of racism
> with respect to the term "master" and "slave" ever came up. Some of my
> favorite people in the world are different color than I am and I have never
> felt anything but admiration for their contributions to the OS communities,
> yet this issue has never even been mentioned before. This is a classic
> case of creating an issue that doesn't exist.
>
> So, please allow my dissenting opinion to be on record: I think this is
> the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed in my 30 years of software
> engineering. The sheer number of defects that will be caused by this
> semantic change borders on insanity in my book. There is zero value add to
> this and the resentment it will cause will be worse than the original
> miss-perception. Inexcusable!
>
> I have a multi-racial family and love every person regardless of their
> ethnicity or color. But this is stupid.
>
> Bob Thorman
> Former Accumulo project member
>
> On 6/18/20, 7:27 AM, "Brian Loss" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to the ranked choice idea. I also think it makes sense to give
> GitHub and/or ASF a little time to select a default/main branch name. It
> would be nice to keep with the standard for the ecosystem since it appears
> GitHub is switching away from master as a default branch name too.
>
> There does appear to be a reference to master in the client API:
> Instance.getMasterLocations(). I believe, according to semver, we’ll have
> to deprecate that but cannot remove it until version 3.
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:22 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of the change.
> >
> > We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to
> do
> > the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to
> determine
> > the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
> > minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
> > bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
> > communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
> > I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main"
> and
> > "default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems
> to
> > have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the
> mainstream.
> > "main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
> > another week or two before we know for sure.
> >
> > For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
> > internal names and references can be changed relatively easily
> without
> > disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
> > locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
> > names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
> > a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
> > do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
> > incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
> > 3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
> >
> > I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
> > server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
> > selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
> > we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
> > names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
> > can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
> > we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
> > opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
> > from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the
> work,
> > so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> renaming the
> >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago
> [1]. Some
> >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> and in
> >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this
> topic.
> >>
> >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> identifying
> >> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> issue would
> >> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy
> to help
> >> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I
> think we
> >> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
> >>
> >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> original ticket
> >> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> and
> >> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>
> >> Billie
> >>
> >> [1]:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ACCUMULO-2D2844&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=tVgyCjxnNiJ0cjUcKRQFKA&m=TCfcV22hAngZI3hopGJOOy0PB2aBU6xHf09Oh53AGq0&s=epFUuh4HcZiRx0n3JWNIUZKHaa6BfhpATbFpzrncx44&e=
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Nathaniel Freeman <vo...@gmail.com>.
Robert
A short but sweet reply.
I've not been involved actively in this project for long, heck I haven't
really contributed more than a few fringe things in associating projects so
I'm sure your valuable contributions over the years have pushed the project
further than could of without your help.
That being said, I think I'm aligned with the view that if even one person
feels angst about the naming convention it's worth changing to make a
better world.
I really like how the whole community is working out how to do this in a
measured manner and not a knee jerk e.g. waiting to find out what a new
standard is, identifying how to implement it without disruption to the
customers (API versions).
A friend once told me,
"just because people don't witness something personally, it doesn't mean it
doesn't happen".
Thank you to everyone working this through in a cohesive manner.
Nat
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 08:48 THORMAN, ROBERT D <rt...@att.com> wrote:
> I have been associated with the Accumulo project since its inception and
> many other AF/LF projects for decades. I have collaborated with many of
> you since the Bigtable paper came out and the NSA started the project which
> was release to the OS community as Cloudbase. My early adoption and use of
> Accumulo has result in many deployments and operations in both public and
> private spaces. Never in my 30 year experience as a software engineer
> working with people from vase ethnical backgrounds has the issue of racism
> with respect to the term "master" and "slave" ever came up. Some of my
> favorite people in the world are different color than I am and I have never
> felt anything but admiration for their contributions to the OS communities,
> yet this issue has never even been mentioned before. This is a classic
> case of creating an issue that doesn't exist.
>
> So, please allow my dissenting opinion to be on record: I think this is
> the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed in my 30 years of software
> engineering. The sheer number of defects that will be caused by this
> semantic change borders on insanity in my book. There is zero value add to
> this and the resentment it will cause will be worse than the original
> miss-perception. Inexcusable!
>
> I have a multi-racial family and love every person regardless of their
> ethnicity or color. But this is stupid.
>
> Bob Thorman
> Former Accumulo project member
>
> On 6/18/20, 7:27 AM, "Brian Loss" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to the ranked choice idea. I also think it makes sense to give
> GitHub and/or ASF a little time to select a default/main branch name. It
> would be nice to keep with the standard for the ecosystem since it appears
> GitHub is switching away from master as a default branch name too.
>
> There does appear to be a reference to master in the client API:
> Instance.getMasterLocations(). I believe, according to semver, we’ll have
> to deprecate that but cannot remove it until version 3.
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:22 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of the change.
> >
> > We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to
> do
> > the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to
> determine
> > the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
> > minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
> > bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
> > communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
> > I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main"
> and
> > "default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems
> to
> > have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the
> mainstream.
> > "main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
> > another week or two before we know for sure.
> >
> > For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
> > internal names and references can be changed relatively easily
> without
> > disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
> > locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
> > names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
> > a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
> > do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
> > incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
> > 3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
> >
> > I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
> > server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
> > selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
> > we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
> > names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
> > can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
> > we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
> > opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
> > from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the
> work,
> > so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> renaming the
> >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago
> [1]. Some
> >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> and in
> >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this
> topic.
> >>
> >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> identifying
> >> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> issue would
> >> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy
> to help
> >> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I
> think we
> >> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
> >>
> >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> original ticket
> >> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> and
> >> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>
> >> Billie
> >>
> >> [1]:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ACCUMULO-2D2844&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=tVgyCjxnNiJ0cjUcKRQFKA&m=TCfcV22hAngZI3hopGJOOy0PB2aBU6xHf09Oh53AGq0&s=epFUuh4HcZiRx0n3JWNIUZKHaa6BfhpATbFpzrncx44&e=
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by "THORMAN, ROBERT D" <rt...@att.com>.
I have been associated with the Accumulo project since its inception and many other AF/LF projects for decades. I have collaborated with many of you since the Bigtable paper came out and the NSA started the project which was release to the OS community as Cloudbase. My early adoption and use of Accumulo has result in many deployments and operations in both public and private spaces. Never in my 30 year experience as a software engineer working with people from vase ethnical backgrounds has the issue of racism with respect to the term "master" and "slave" ever came up. Some of my favorite people in the world are different color than I am and I have never felt anything but admiration for their contributions to the OS communities, yet this issue has never even been mentioned before. This is a classic case of creating an issue that doesn't exist.
So, please allow my dissenting opinion to be on record: I think this is the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed in my 30 years of software engineering. The sheer number of defects that will be caused by this semantic change borders on insanity in my book. There is zero value add to this and the resentment it will cause will be worse than the original miss-perception. Inexcusable!
I have a multi-racial family and love every person regardless of their ethnicity or color. But this is stupid.
Bob Thorman
Former Accumulo project member
On 6/18/20, 7:27 AM, "Brian Loss" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 to the ranked choice idea. I also think it makes sense to give GitHub and/or ASF a little time to select a default/main branch name. It would be nice to keep with the standard for the ecosystem since it appears GitHub is switching away from master as a default branch name too.
There does appear to be a reference to master in the client API: Instance.getMasterLocations(). I believe, according to semver, we’ll have to deprecate that but cannot remove it until version 3.
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:22 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of the change.
>
> We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to do
> the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to determine
> the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
> minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
> bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
> communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
> I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main" and
> "default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems to
> have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the mainstream.
> "main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
> another week or two before we know for sure.
>
> For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
> internal names and references can be changed relatively easily without
> disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
> locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
> names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
> a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
> do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
> incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
> 3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
>
> I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
> server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
> selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
> we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
> names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
> can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
> we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
> opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
> from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the work,
> so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
>
> Christopher
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>
>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
>> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
>> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
>> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
>> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
>>
>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
>> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
>> other ideas, if you have them.
>>
>> Billie
>>
>> [1]: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ACCUMULO-2D2844&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=tVgyCjxnNiJ0cjUcKRQFKA&m=TCfcV22hAngZI3hopGJOOy0PB2aBU6xHf09Oh53AGq0&s=epFUuh4HcZiRx0n3JWNIUZKHaa6BfhpATbFpzrncx44&e=
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com>.
+1 to the ranked choice idea. I also think it makes sense to give GitHub and/or ASF a little time to select a default/main branch name. It would be nice to keep with the standard for the ecosystem since it appears GitHub is switching away from master as a default branch name too.
There does appear to be a reference to master in the client API: Instance.getMasterLocations(). I believe, according to semver, we’ll have to deprecate that but cannot remove it until version 3.
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:22 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of the change.
>
> We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to do
> the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to determine
> the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
> minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
> bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
> communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
> I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main" and
> "default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems to
> have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the mainstream.
> "main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
> another week or two before we know for sure.
>
> For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
> internal names and references can be changed relatively easily without
> disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
> locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
> names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
> a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
> do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
> incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
> 3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
>
> I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
> server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
> selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
> we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
> names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
> can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
> we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
> opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
> from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the work,
> so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
>
> Christopher
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>
>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
>> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
>> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
>> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
>> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
>>
>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
>> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
>> other ideas, if you have them.
>>
>> Billie
>>
>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
I'm in favor of the change.
We can change the git branch names pretty easily, and am willing to do
the legwork on that part. I've already checked with INFRA to determine
the extent of the consequences, and it looks like it should be
minimal, with the right coordination. However, I have been waiting to
bring it up on list until the larger ASF and GitHub open source
communities have converged on a preferred alternative name. The ones
I've seen suggested most are "main/primary/default". I like "main" and
"default", but would prefer to stick with whatever convention seems to
have the most momentum globally, so we're staying with the mainstream.
"main" seems to be gaining the most traction, but I would give it
another week or two before we know for sure.
For the accumulo server, this is going to be a little rough. Most
internal names and references can be changed relatively easily without
disruption. The main breakages would be Thrift API, ZooKeeper storage
locations, Monitor XML/JSON, KeywordExecutable/scripts, and property
names, with property names being the most user-facing (unless we have
a public API with references to the "master", which I don't think we
do). Many of these changes can be done independently and
incrementally, and we can try to hold off on breaking changes until
3.0, but it will take work to retain compatibility before then.
I like the idea to do ranked choice voting to select a name for the
server. Let's do that in a new thread, so we can just focus on name
selection there. As for actually making changes... Mike Wall asked if
we should start a vote. IMO, there's nothing to vote on other than
names. Everything else is volunteer-contributed changes... which we
can treat like any other pull request. If we need to coordinate, then
we can discuss on list, as usual. Voting is for resolving competing
opinions, and for releasing. The general idea seems pretty unanimous
from those weighing in so far... it's just a matter of doing the work,
so other than the names, I don't see anything left to vote on.
Christopher
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>
> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying
> the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would
> be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help
> work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we
> should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
>
> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket
> were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> other ideas, if you have them.
>
> Billie
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Drew Farris <dr...@apache.org>.
Jeremy,
Good question - off the top of my head, most user code employs a list of
zookeepers, an instance name and user/pw for connecting to Accumulo. I
can't think where user code would be required to use the term master
explicitly. There is some platform automation code (e.g:
fluo-uno/fluo-muchos) that will need to change.
All,
FWIW, I'm partial to Billie's suggestion of Coordinator, but Conductor,
Director, Nucleo or Cervello could be options as well.
Drew
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <
kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> Will it break user code?
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed,
> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names
> as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/-
> vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in
> this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> >
> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> >> master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> understand
> >> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie,
> do
> >> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That
> could
> >>> also be a possibility.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>
> >>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming
> the
> >>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> Some
> >>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and
> in
> >>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>>
> >>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a
> GitHub
> >>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I
> am
> >>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out
> too,
> >>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> >>> tasks.
> >>>
> >>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> >>> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> >>> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>
> >>> Billie
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joey Frazee
<jo...@icloud.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I think this is an important thing to do from the standpoint of being welcoming (this is in the current code of conduct btw).
That is my reason for supporting. When I ask myself, is this name
unwelcoming? I concluded that it likely is for some. Based on that I
decided to support changing the name.
>
> I’ve repeated this elsewhere but I was on a team 7 years ago where someone asked us to stop using terminology including master and slave because it made them uncomfortable. As team mates and friends it was an easy thing for us to do; and likely much harder for that individual to ask for or previously live with than any code change.
>
> A wait to see where ASF and GitHub land is a surely a legitimate approach, but it’s probably important to put a time bound on it to avoid a delay.
>
> -joey
> On Jun 18, 2020, 9:44 AM -0500, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>, wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL
> > <ke...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Will it break user code?
> >
> > I don't think the change has to break existing code, could use
> > deprecation for APIs. The properties could be automatically
> > translated with a warning logged or servers could refuse to start if
> > old properties are seen with a clear message telling the user what to
> > do. I think we can find a sensible path that changes the name and
> > minimizes problems.
> >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed, and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> > > >
> > > > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> > > > > master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> > > > > the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
> > > > > you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
> > > > > > also be a possibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> > > > > > To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> > > > > > Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> > > > > > things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> > > > > > our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> > > > > > identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> > > > > > issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
> > > > > > happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
> > > > > > I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> > > > > > ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> > > > > > possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> > > > > > generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> > > > > > other ideas, if you have them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Billie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Joey Frazee <jo...@icloud.com.INVALID>.
I think this is an important thing to do from the standpoint of being welcoming (this is in the current code of conduct btw).
I’ve repeated this elsewhere but I was on a team 7 years ago where someone asked us to stop using terminology including master and slave because it made them uncomfortable. As team mates and friends it was an easy thing for us to do; and likely much harder for that individual to ask for or previously live with than any code change.
A wait to see where ASF and GitHub land is a surely a legitimate approach, but it’s probably important to put a time bound on it to avoid a delay.
-joey
On Jun 18, 2020, 9:44 AM -0500, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>, wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL
> <ke...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Will it break user code?
>
> I don't think the change has to break existing code, could use
> deprecation for APIs. The properties could be automatically
> translated with a warning logged or servers could refuse to start if
> old properties are seen with a clear message telling the user what to
> do. I think we can find a sensible path that changes the name and
> minimizes problems.
>
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed, and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> > >
> > > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> > >
> > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> > > > master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> > > > the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
> > > > you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
> > > > > also be a possibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> > > > > To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> > > > > Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> > > > > things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> > > > > our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> > > > > identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> > > > > issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
> > > > > happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
> > > > > I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> > > > > tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> > > > > ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> > > > > possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> > > > > generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> > > > > other ideas, if you have them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Billie
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> > > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL
<ke...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Will it break user code?
I don't think the change has to break existing code, could use
deprecation for APIs. The properties could be automatically
translated with a warning logged or servers could refuse to start if
old properties are seen with a clear message telling the user what to
do. I think we can find a sensible path that changes the name and
minimizes problems.
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed, and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> >
> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> >> master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> >> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
> >> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
> >>> also be a possibility.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>
> >>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> >>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> >>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> >>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>>
> >>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> >>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
> >>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
> >>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> >>> tasks.
> >>>
> >>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> >>> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> >>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> >>> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>
> >>> Billie
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:40 AM Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>
> For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
>
> This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another.
That is a good point. Don't want to rush and don't want to let it
fall off the radar and also may want to collect more information.
I am thinking of creating a document PR on the website that outlines
the process for choosing a new name. I think there is broad consensus
that voting on a name change is a good idea. The specifics of how
this vote will happen need to be worked out. Personally I think a PR
is a better way to do this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>
> I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a possible choice.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Will it break user code?
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
> > > discussed,
> > and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> > I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
> > names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> > >
> > > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> > That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
> > a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
> > discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> > >
> > >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
> > >> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> > understand
> > >> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
> > >> Billie,
> > do
> > >> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
> > >>> That
> > could
> > >>> also be a possibility.
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> > >>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> > >>> renaming
> > the
> > >>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> > Some
> > >>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> > >>> and
> > in
> > >>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> > >>>
> > >>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> > >>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
> > >>> a
> > GitHub
> > >>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
> > >>> and I
> > am
> > >>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
> > >>> out
> > too,
> > >>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
> > >>> discrete tasks.
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> > >>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
> > >>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> > Admin is
> > >>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> > >>> and other ideas, if you have them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Billie
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
May I suggest that you reach out to ComDev and try to coordinate with other
projects that are going to do this? Also, whatever GitHub is doing is going
to influence the whole Git community and might be worth keeping that in
mind.
Niclas
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:46 AM Christopher Waring <
christopher.a.waring@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’ll second Billie’s proposal as it’s a good idea and something we should
> pursue. Being as inclusive, open, and inviting as possible is a good
> thing! Jeremy, thanks for a good strawman for a reasonable way to proceed
> with our next steps.
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 18, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <
> kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the following approach might make sense:
> >
> > (1) Identify the changes that would need to be made.
> >
> > (2) Understand the impact of those changes.
> >
> > (3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we
> have plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making
> a change would be a relatively simple process?
> >
> > (4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking
> similar efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near
> future. It would seem prudent to learn from their experiences.
> >
> > There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a
> detailed proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the
> experiences of other open source projects.
> >
> > The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late
> 1990s, and by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by
> the mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers
> and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
> >>
> >> This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume
> elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader /
> follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that
> we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache
> community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for
> another.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
> >> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> >> Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>
> >> I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary"
> as a possible choice.
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <
> kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Will it break user code?
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
> >>>> discussed,
> >>> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be
> disruptive.
> >>> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
> >>> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> >>> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
> >>> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
> >>> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is
> held.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
> >>>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> >>> understand
> >>>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
> >>>>> Billie,
> >>> do
> >>>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
> >>>>>> That
> >>> could
> >>>>>> also be a possibility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> >>>>>> renaming
> >>> the
> >>>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> >>> Some
> >>>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> >>>>>> and
> >>> in
> >>>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this
> topic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
> >>>>>> a
> >>> GitHub
> >>>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
> >>>>>> and I
> >>> am
> >>>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
> >>>>>> out
> >>> too,
> >>>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
> >>>>>> discrete tasks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> >>>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
> >>>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin
> / AdminServer.
> >>> Admin is
> >>>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> >>>>>> and other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Billie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Christopher Waring <ch...@gmail.com>.
I’ll second Billie’s proposal as it’s a good idea and something we should pursue. Being as inclusive, open, and inviting as possible is a good thing! Jeremy, thanks for a good strawman for a reasonable way to proceed with our next steps.
-Chris
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the following approach might make sense:
>
> (1) Identify the changes that would need to be made.
>
> (2) Understand the impact of those changes.
>
> (3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we have plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making a change would be a relatively simple process?
>
> (4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking similar efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near future. It would seem prudent to learn from their experiences.
>
> There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a detailed proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the experiences of other open source projects.
>
> The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late 1990s, and by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by the mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point.
>
>
>
>> On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>>
>> For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
>>
>> This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
>> Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>>
>> I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a possible choice.
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Will it break user code?
>>>
>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
>>>> discussed,
>>> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
>>> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
>>> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
>>>>
>>>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
>>> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
>>> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
>>> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
>>>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
>>> understand
>>>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
>>>>> Billie,
>>> do
>>>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
>>>>>> That
>>> could
>>>>>> also be a possibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
>>>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
>>>>>> renaming
>>> the
>>>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
>>> Some
>>>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
>>>>>> and
>>> in
>>>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
>>>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
>>>>>> a
>>> GitHub
>>>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
>>>>>> and I
>>> am
>>>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
>>>>>> out
>>> too,
>>>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
>>>>>> discrete tasks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
>>>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
>>>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
>>> Admin is
>>>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
>>>>>> and other ideas, if you have them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Billie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL
<ke...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the following approach might make sense:
>
> (1) Identify the changes that would need to be made.
I created the following project on Github to try to organize all the
different aspects of this. I am going to work on identifying specific
things that need to be done in the code and opening more issues under
the project for them later today. Please open issues if you know of
specific work that would need to be done so we can try to identify
everything.
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/14
>
> (2) Understand the impact of those changes.
>
> (3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we have plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making a change would be a relatively simple process?
>
> (4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking similar efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near future. It would seem prudent to learn from their experiences.
>
> There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a detailed proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the experiences of other open source projects.
>
> The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late 1990s, and by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by the mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point.
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> >
> > For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
> >
> > This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
> > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> > Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >
> > I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a possible choice.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Will it break user code?
> >>
> >>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
> >>> discussed,
> >> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> >> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
> >> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >>>
> >>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> >> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
> >> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
> >> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
> >>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> >> understand
> >>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
> >>>> Billie,
> >> do
> >>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
> >>>>> That
> >> could
> >>>>> also be a possibility.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> >>>>> renaming
> >> the
> >>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> >> Some
> >>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> >>>>> and
> >> in
> >>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
> >>>>> a
> >> GitHub
> >>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
> >>>>> and I
> >> am
> >>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
> >>>>> out
> >> too,
> >>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
> >>>>> discrete tasks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> >>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
> >>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> >> Admin is
> >>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> >>>>> and other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Billie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by "Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL" <ke...@ll.mit.edu>.
Perhaps the following approach might make sense:
(1) Identify the changes that would need to be made.
(2) Understand the impact of those changes.
(3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we have plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making a change would be a relatively simple process?
(4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking similar efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near future. It would seem prudent to learn from their experiences.
There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a detailed proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the experiences of other open source projects.
The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late 1990s, and by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by the mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point.
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>
> For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
>
> This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>
> I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a possible choice.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Will it break user code?
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
>>> discussed,
>> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
>> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
>> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
>>>
>>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
>> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
>> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
>> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
>>>
>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
>>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
>> understand
>>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
>>>> Billie,
>> do
>>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
>>>>> That
>> could
>>>>> also be a possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
>>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
>>>>> renaming
>> the
>>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
>> Some
>>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
>>>>> and
>> in
>>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
>>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
>>>>> a
>> GitHub
>>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
>>>>> and I
>> am
>>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
>>>>> out
>> too,
>>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
>>>>> discrete tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
>>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
>>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
>> Admin is
>>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
>>>>> and other ideas, if you have them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Billie
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com>.
For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <ke...@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a possible choice.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> Will it break user code?
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last
> > discussed,
> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service
> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be
> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more
> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> >
> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and
> >> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> understand
> >> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that.
> >> Billie,
> do
> >> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'.
> >>> That
> could
> >>> also be a possibility.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>
> >>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about
> >>> renaming
> the
> >>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> Some
> >>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world
> >>> and
> in
> >>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>>
> >>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably
> >>> a
> GitHub
> >>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change
> >>> and I
> am
> >>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping
> >>> out
> too,
> >>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several
> >>> discrete tasks.
> >>>
> >>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the
> >>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to
> >>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts
> >>> and other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>
> >>> Billie
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Adam Lerman <al...@gmail.com>.
I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a
possible choice.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <
kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> Will it break user code?
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed,
> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names
> as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote?
> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/-
> vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in
> this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> >
> >> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> >> master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to
> understand
> >> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie,
> do
> >> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That
> could
> >>> also be a possibility.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>>
> >>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming
> the
> >>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> Some
> >>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and
> in
> >>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>>
> >>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a
> GitHub
> >>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I
> am
> >>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out
> too,
> >>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> >>> tasks.
> >>>
> >>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> >>> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> >>> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>>
> >>> Billie
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by "Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL" <ke...@ll.mit.edu>.
Will it break user code?
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed, and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
>
> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
>> master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
>>> also be a possibility.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>>>
>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>>
>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
>>> tasks.
>>>
>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
>>> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
>>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
>>> other ideas, if you have them.
>>>
>>> Billie
>>>
>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Michael Wall <mj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:44 PM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed,
> > and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> > I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names
> > as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That
> > is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote
> > for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this
> > discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held
>
>
> Brian, good question. I was thinking the name choice would be separate from
> whether we should make the change. But happy to have 1 vote instead of 2.
We could have a ranked vote for the new name. To keep this to a
single vote, one of the choices for a ranked vote could be "keep
current name". We could have a period of name proposals (at least 3
days), followed by someone creating a list of all proposals (I could
do that), followed by a ranked vote on the list.
The following method may be good for the vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
> > .
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> > > master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> > > the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie,
> > do
> > > you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That
> > could
> > >> also be a possibility.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> > >> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> > >>
> > >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> > >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> > Some
> > >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and
> > in
> > >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> > >>
> > >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> > >> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a
> > GitHub
> > >> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I
> > am
> > >> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out
> > too,
> > >> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> > >> tasks.
> > >>
> > >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> > >> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> > >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> > Admin is
> > >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> > >> other ideas, if you have them.
> > >>
> > >> Billie
> > >>
> > >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> > >>
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Marc <ph...@apache.org>.
Thanks for sending this Billie. I like the idea of a vote and also
support the change.
I look forward to all discussions around this.
I assume the target version would be 3x and thus breaking changes
would be minimized via some migration.
I think target GH issues would likely address this. Happy to help in
this endeavor as well.
Thanks,
Marc
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Michael Wall <mj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:44 PM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed,
> > and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> > I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names
> > as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
> >
> > Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That
> > is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote
> > for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this
> > discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held
>
>
> Brian, good question. I was thinking the name choice would be separate from
> whether we should make the change. But happy to have 1 vote instead of 2.
>
> > .
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> > > master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> > > the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie,
> > do
> > > you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That
> > could
> > >> also be a possibility.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> > >> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> > >>
> > >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> > >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> > Some
> > >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and
> > in
> > >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> > >>
> > >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> > >> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a
> > GitHub
> > >> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I
> > am
> > >> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out
> > too,
> > >> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> > >> tasks.
> > >>
> > >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> > >> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> > >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> > Admin is
> > >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> > >> other ideas, if you have them.
> > >>
> > >> Billie
> > >>
> > >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> > >>
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:44 PM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed,
> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive.
> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names
> as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
>
> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That
> is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote
> for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this
> discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held
Brian, good question. I was thinking the name choice would be separate from
whether we should make the change. But happy to have 1 vote instead of 2.
> .
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> > master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> > the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie,
> do
> > you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That
> could
> >> also be a possibility.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> >> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
> >>
> >> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> >> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1].
> Some
> >> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and
> in
> >> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
> >>
> >> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> >> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a
> GitHub
> >> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I
> am
> >> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out
> too,
> >> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> >> tasks.
> >>
> >> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> >> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> >> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer.
> Admin is
> >> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> >> other ideas, if you have them.
> >>
> >> Billie
> >>
> >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com>.
I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last discussed, and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done.
Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held.
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
> master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
> you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
>> also be a possibility.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
>> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>>
>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>>
>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
>> tasks.
>>
>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
>> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
>> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
>> other ideas, if you have them.
>>
>> Billie
>>
>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org>.
I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and the
master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to understand
the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. Billie, do
you want to start the ticket you mentioned?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
> also be a possibility.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>
> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>
> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> tasks.
>
> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> other ideas, if you have them.
>
> Billie
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by Mike Miller <mm...@apache.org>.
While 'main' might be ok for github use, I don't think it would work well
for Java applications with the reserved use of the 'main' method. Plus we
already have a "Main" class.
I think "Admin" is nice and short but would be confusing with the Admin
class and keyword executable command.
Reading through some of the ideas from that ticket I like "Director" or
"Conductor".
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <jm...@evoforge.org> wrote:
> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could
> also be a possibility.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
> To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
>
> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the
> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some
> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in
> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
>
> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start
> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub
> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am
> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too,
> I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete
> tasks.
>
> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original
> ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another
> possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is
> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and
> other ideas, if you have them.
>
> Billie
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Posted by "Owens, Mark" <jm...@evoforge.org>.
Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. That could also be a possibility.
-----Original Message-----
From: Billie Rinaldi <bi...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master
Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about renaming the Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. Some things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world and in our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic.
If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably a GitHub issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change and I am happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping out too, I think we should be able to break the work down into several discrete tasks.
I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / AdminServer. Admin is generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts and other ideas, if you have them.
Billie
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844