3 ms·

I find it confusing and nonsensical. As they say, naming is hard and using the correct term is a worthy refactoring IMO.

malvosenior 8y ago
As you know, the term has been in use for decades and no one was confused. It's ok to say you find it offensive. I don't agree but it's a more honest take then all of the sudden finding a term that's been in use for 50+ years "confusing". In no way was the term master/slave stopping anyone from understanding how to implement functionality with Redis. There may even be a more accurate term for Redis' architecture, great. Is it worth a breaking change to get a better metaphor? IMO not in software deployed at the scope of Redis and those offended should have the onus of implementation and support.
- bigiain 8y ago
  > As you know, the term has been in use for decades and no one was confused. It's ok to say you find it offensive. I don't think that's a powerful argument _against_ the change antirez has chosen to make. There are a lot of other terms that were in common use for decades, that confused no-one, that reasonable people have stopped using because they're offensive to other groups of people.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    That's my argument against saying the term master/slave is confusing. Like you said, some people found it offensive, there's no credible argument that says it was confusing (although people are trying to make it). My argument against making the change is that it's high risk for a functional NOOP.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      A "functional NOOP" for people with a particular privilege. Rosa Parks would have risked much less and still have gotten home if she'd given up her bus seat. Would that have been a "functional NOOP" too? (Edit: In rereading this I can see it might be taken as accusative or aggressive. It's not intended in that way, and certainly not intended to accuse you personally of overprivilege or racism...)
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        I didn't take it as a personal attack (and didn't downvote you) but I don't agree. There was an actual rule in place that Rosa Parks had to stand up against, not just terminology she was uncomfortable with. I think it's not safe to assume people who are from minority groups or people from underprivileged backgrounds have a problem with this (source, myself). When you experience actual racism, something like this looks pretty silly. I'm in agreement with antirez. I wouldn't use these terms in a new project, but their use for the past half a century should be pretty uncontroversial and definitely not cause for mass mobbing/shaming...

malvosenior 8y ago

As you know, the term has been in use for decades and no one was confused. It's ok to say you find it offensive. I don't agree but it's a more honest take then all of the sudden finding a term that's been in use for 50+ years "confusing". In no way was the term master/slave stopping anyone from understanding how to implement functionality with Redis. There may even be a more accurate term for Redis' architecture, great. Is it worth a breaking change to get a better metaphor? IMO not in software deployed at the scope of Redis and those offended should have the onus of implementation and support.

bigiain 8y ago
> As you know, the term has been in use for decades and no one was confused. It's ok to say you find it offensive. I don't think that's a powerful argument _against_ the change antirez has chosen to make. There are a lot of other terms that were in common use for decades, that confused no-one, that reasonable people have stopped using because they're offensive to other groups of people.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  That's my argument against saying the term master/slave is confusing. Like you said, some people found it offensive, there's no credible argument that says it was confusing (although people are trying to make it). My argument against making the change is that it's high risk for a functional NOOP.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    A "functional NOOP" for people with a particular privilege. Rosa Parks would have risked much less and still have gotten home if she'd given up her bus seat. Would that have been a "functional NOOP" too? (Edit: In rereading this I can see it might be taken as accusative or aggressive. It's not intended in that way, and certainly not intended to accuse you personally of overprivilege or racism...)
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      I didn't take it as a personal attack (and didn't downvote you) but I don't agree. There was an actual rule in place that Rosa Parks had to stand up against, not just terminology she was uncomfortable with. I think it's not safe to assume people who are from minority groups or people from underprivileged backgrounds have a problem with this (source, myself). When you experience actual racism, something like this looks pretty silly. I'm in agreement with antirez. I wouldn't use these terms in a new project, but their use for the past half a century should be pretty uncontroversial and definitely not cause for mass mobbing/shaming...