Fix inconsiderate naming #165
Conversation
|
It is not even used as a metaphor (I am referring here to a deleted comment). One definition of slave in my dictionary is:
So, technically, it is the proper use of the word. And I think it conveys the right meaning in this context. But it's not important to me, of course. |
|
Ignore the haters, I'm a fan of this change. Nice work @pcbro |
|
Master / Slave are perfectly acceptable words in the English language and are very well understood and widely-used term in technology. Leader / Follower as a metaphor does not describe the relationship as well. This change is objectively pointless and introduces inconsistent terminology. If you are offended by this term in some codebase then you most likely have too much time on your hands. Perhaps we can ask them to also change the name of the repo? Apple offends me and is inconsiderate because I think of Adam & Eve and the devil... |
|
Would replica/primary be a better solution for everyone? |
|
I can only agree with @peterkellyonline and the comment provided by @Jaxan makes it clear that this usage is targeted at the technical application of the terms.. |
|
The guys name is 'pcbro' and obviously refers to South Park. Hard to tell if this is genuine or a troll. |
|
He's just running stuff through Alex I think. |
|
If this nomenclature wasn't in Swift 2, would it be added to Swift 3? I think it's worth considering. If leader/follower isn't the right metaphor, then find a new one. |
|
Quite beside the point who originated this patch. I don't object at all to "leader" or "follower", and I doubt you'll find anyone who does. If you're objecting to the motivation of this patch, that is also quite beside the point. The Swift open source community will entirely benefit from a slightly more inclusive change in name that has no impact on development, and more to the point, by accepting this patch (and the untold hundreds of "typo" patches that went through last night) it can be publicly demonstrated that all contributions are welcome and considered on their merits alone. |
|
Merging into 'master'? Outrageous. |
|
I object to Leader / Follower because it does not describe the concept as well as Master / Slave, which everyone is familiar with. And it is perfectly acceptable terminology used as it is in a technology domain. But more importantly, just because you are offended by something doesn't mean it has to change. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, removing Master/Slave terminology is certainly worthwhile. Appealing that something was ok in the past generally isn't a good enough argument to keep it (after all, the whole reason people are starting to question this terminology is because of it's relation to something that was deemed "ok" in the past, but which we no longer view as acceptable). That said, while Leader/Follower is an improvement I'm not entirely sure it's ideal. Maybe Primary/Replica would be better. |
|
Manager/worker? |
|
Even just master/worker would be fine? |
|
👍 |
|
The English word "Master" is used in technology for a few different reasons.
Sometimes "host" is used instead of "master" (networks, USB, et cetera) as they are synonyms. When an antonym to "master" was required to indicate a similar item that is not defined as "master", "slave" is generally chosen. Not necessarily because of the meaning of the word but because it is an antonym for most uses of the word "master". |
|
Its used in a different context, but theres a lot of good discussion on this django PR django/django#2692 |
|
Looks good, thanks! |
Change master/slave to leader/follower in test
Fixes inconsiderate naming in test