Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
ek...@google.com
[Empty comment from Monorail migration]
ma...@gmail.com
[Empty comment from Monorail migration]
lu...@gmail.com
I believe [1] and [2] are good first steps, but there are still references. Also, we should also considering removing the difference between the primary and replica and just name them both instances: one is RW and. the other is RO.
A multi-primary setup looks really illogical as terminology, whilst a cluster with multiple instances (or nodes) would be easier to understand.
A multi-primary setup looks really illogical as terminology, whilst a cluster with multiple instances (or nodes) would be easier to understand.
sv...@axis.com
@Luca
I agree that ReadOnly-ReadWrite would be better terminology for the different flavors of Gerrit instances (than primary-replica), for two main reasons:
1. The terms replica|mirror are IMO usable only for the replicated git-content vs the primary source, the Gerrit instances that serves this replicated git-content are not necessarily replicas of the "primary".
2. This reason you have already outlined. The term "Multi-primary" IMO makes it clear that this is a sub-optimal terminology.
That being said the main reason for this issue is to remove the master and slave terminology from Gerrit, which is already done IIUC.
Could you create an issue where we can discuss the possibility of changing the terminology to a more suitable one?
I agree that ReadOnly-ReadWrite would be better terminology for the different flavors of Gerrit instances (than primary-replica), for two main reasons:
1. The terms replica|mirror are IMO usable only for the replicated git-content vs the primary source, the Gerrit instances that serves this replicated git-content are not necessarily replicas of the "primary".
2. This reason you have already outlined. The term "Multi-primary" IMO makes it clear that this is a sub-optimal terminology.
That being said the main reason for this issue is to remove the master and slave terminology from Gerrit, which is already done IIUC.
Could you create an issue where we can discuss the possibility of changing the terminology to a more suitable one?
ek...@google.com
> Could you create an issue where we can discuss the possibility of changing the terminology to a more suitable one?
+1, we can discuss this separately. I'm fine with finding better terms terms than "primary"/"replica".
+1, we can discuss this separately. I'm fine with finding better terms terms than "primary"/"replica".
ma...@gmail.com
[Empty comment from Monorail migration]
ma...@gmail.com
[Empty comment from Monorail migration]
is...@google.com
Edits were made to reflect the following in Monorail: auto-CCs.
Description
the use of "master" and "slave" is considered offensive
We decided to use the terms "primary" and "replica" instead.
For Gerrit core this has already been addressed by [1,2], but we should double-check that all occurrences were fixed.
Fixing these terms in Gerrit plugins is tracked by
[1]
[2]