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

[Kristoffer Grönlund]

Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> writes:

>
> For Pacemaker 2, I'd like to replace the <master> resource type with
> <clone stateful="true">. (The old syntax would be transparently
> upgraded to the new one.) The role names themselves are not likely to
> be changed in that time frame, as they are used in more external pieces
> such as notification variables. But it would be the first step.
>
> I hope that this will be an uncontroversial change in the ClusterLabs
> community, but because such changes have been heated elsewhere, here is
> why this change is desirable:
>

I agree 100% about this change. In Hawk, we've already tried to hide the
Master/Slave terms as much as possible and replace them with
primary/secondary and "Multi-state", but I'm happy to converge on common
terms.

I'm partial to "Promoted" and "Started" since it makes it clearer that
the secondary state is a base state and that it's the promoted state
which is different / special.

However, can I throw a wrench in the machinery? When replacing the
<master> resource type with <clone stateful="true">, why not go a step
further and merge both <master> and <clone> with the basic <primitive>?

<primitive replicas="2"> => clone
<primitive replicas="2" stateful="true"> => master

or for groups,

<group replicas="2" stateful="true">

I have never understood the usefulness of separate meta-attribute sets
for the <clone> and <primitive> nodes.

-- 
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund at suse.com