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

[Digimer]

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.
>>>
>>> For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"?
>>
>> I'm not sure to understand what your question is about.
>>
>> If it is related to how the RA are designated between the ones able
>> to
>> promote/demote and the other ones, this does not reflect to me the
>> resource can
>> be either started or promoted. Moreover, I suppose this kind of
>> resources are
>> not always binary clones. The states might be purely logical.
>>
>> Multistate sounds the best option to me. Simple.
>>
>> If you need some more options, I would pick: clustered resource.
>>
>> We could argue simple clones might be "clustered resource" as well,
>> but they
>> are not supposed to be related to each other as a primary/promoted
>> resource and
>> a secondary/standby resource are.
> 
> Zeroing in on this question, which does everyone prefer:
> 
> * "Binary clones" (in the sense of "one of two roles", but not very
> obvious)
> 
> * "Stateful clones" (potentially confusing with anonymous vs unique
> clones, and all resources have state)
> 
> * "Multistate clones" (less confusing with anonymous vs unique, and
> already in current use in documentation, but still all resources have
> multiple possible states)
> 
> * "Promotable clones" (consistent with "promote" theme, but the word
> looks odd, and confusing with whether an individual instance is
> eligible to be promoted)
> 
> * "Promotion clones" (also consistent, but sounds odd and not
> particularly obvious)

I don't want to push my preferences here, but I wanted to suggest that
something that sounds a bit on now will sound normal over time.

I will point out, though, that spell check doesn't complain about
'Binary' and 'Promotion'.

If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for it
myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three words
instead of two, spell-check likes it, it sounds OK on day one (from a
language perspective) and it reflects that the clone has only one of two
states.

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of
Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent
have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould