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

[Klaus Wenninger]

On 01/25/2018 09:21 PM, Digimer wrote:
> 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?
I would probably fall under this category and "Promotable" makes
makes sense to me.
But unfortunately I'm probably already tainted by
long-time-exposure to pacemaker ;-)

Regards,
Klaus
>
>