[ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

[Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:10:14 +0100
Klaus Wenninger <kwenning at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 01/26/2018 04:37 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 09:07 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:  
> >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0500
> >> Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:  
> >>>> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote:    
> >>>>> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:    
> >>>>>> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de
> >>>>>> Rorthais
> >>>>>> wrote:    
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600
> >>>>>>> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>    
> >>>>>>>> I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started"
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> role
> >>>>>>>> names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses
> >>>>>>>> them.  
> > Doh! I forgot that there is a key difference between "started" and
> > "slave". If you set target-role="Started" for a multistate clone,
> > Pacemaker is allowed to bring it up in master or slave mode, whereas
> > specifying "Master" or "Slave" specifically only allows that one role.
> >
> > So, we can't use "started" to replace "slave".  
> 
> Question is if it has to be like that.
> Intention is obviously to prevent that pacemaker doesn't promote
> the resource. Could it be a meta-attribute "inhibit-promotion"
> as well. Or any other means to inhibit promotion - you are
> getting my idea ...

Or maybe introduce something more intuitive like "active"?

target-role would have: stopped, started, promoted or active(started or
promoted).