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

[Digimer]

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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

If the thing only has two states; "dual-role" is perfect. If the thing
can have 3+ states, "multistate" is perfect.

"Promotable" is certainly accurate, but I have a (very mild) concern
about how easily it is understood by non-native English speakers.
Perhaps someone who speaks English as a second language could chime in
on that?

-- 
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