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

[Ken Gaillot]

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.
> > > > 
> > > > 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.

Or "dual-role".

Binary/dual/multi all have the issue that all resources have multiple
states (stopped, started, etc.). Not a deal-breaker, but a factor to
consider.

What we're trying to represent is: clone resources that have an
additional possible role that pacemaker manages via the promote/demote
actions.

I go back and forth between options. "Multistate" would be OK,
especially since it's already used in some places. "Promotable" is
probably most accurate.
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>