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

[Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais]

FWIW, bellow my opinion about this

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:33:56 -0600
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for
> "master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation change.

+1

> A bigger question is what to call the two roles. "Master" and "Slave"
> would be continue to be accepted for backward compatibility for a long
> time. Some suggestions:
> * master/worker, master/replicant, primary/backup: I'd like to avoid
> terms like these. OCF and Pacemaker are application-agnostic, whereas
> these terms imply particular functionality and are often associated
> with particular software.

-1 for them as well.

> * primary/secondary: Widely used, but sometimes associated with
> particular software.

+1

> * promoted with either unpromoted, demoted, default, or started: All
> OCF and Pacemaker actually care about is whether the resource agent has
> been called with the promote action. "Promoted" is good, but the other
> role is less obvious.

Started and Promoted might do the job, and sounds agnostic in regard with
application terminology.

I don't have strong argument to pick one between primary/secondary and
started/promoted. The first might be more convenient to understand to
most people without further explanation about Pacemaker internal mechanism
though.

[...]

I suppose, this should be reflected on pcs/crmsh as well at some point.

++