Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redis 4.0

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 184 posts

Re: Redis 4.0

#41

Post by schneems »

pinum wrote: post #10
numbsafari wrote: post #5

I really wish Redis wouldn't use the "master/slave" terminology. Primary/replica or even Master/replica are better terms. I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but it's a pox on a project that I otherwise very much love.

This terminology has been used for a long time in computing. It's immediately recognised by everyone and in no way endorses human slavery. I'm getting quite fed up of the OTT political correctness movement in tech. Out of interest, what is your opinion on male/female USB connectors? Does one deserve to get fired if they make a joke about "big dongles"?

The actual act of slavery existed as an accepted institution for longer than this computing term has. If we can make slavery a thing of the past (in the western world), we can also update to a more technically correct description of the behavior.

The term "slave" isn't even a good technical term. It would be better to call it a follower or replica which better approximates it's actual role. Not only is it "politically correct" it's also "technically correct", the best kind of correct.

Re: Redis 4.0

#42

Post by toomuchtodo »

matt4077 wrote: post #32
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words only have meaning if you give them meaning, and while a smaller progressive org might care, it doesn't seem to be a fight worth having. No one thinks your technical terminology supports the historical subjucation of a race, and I wish we could be adults and get on to real work. Outrage fatigue is a thing. I just want to build, and save the politics for my off hours. Edit: mods, feel free to detach as off to…

Considering how meaningless words are, they seem to have quite an effect on on you... I'm pretty sure your suffering would be alleviated if people chose to respect others' claims if injuries, at least in cases where the cost of doing so is absolutely zero. You can't pretend that there is absolutely no case for people to be upset with this naming scheme. Politics, in this case, is only intruding on your valuable "tech…

My changing my tech terminology isn't going to fix systemic racial tensions. It's not going to fix white officers getting away with killing unarmed black civilians. It's not going to fix the mass incarceration of black males due to broken public policy over the last few decades. It's not going to fix systemic policy issues that lead to a higher chance of poverty for minorities, preventing class mobility.

Pick the right fight. How many man hours have we all wasted on this discussion already?

My time is valuable. Through my dollars earned I contribute to positive social change wherever possible. What's your contribution besides berating me?

Re: Redis 4.0

#43

Post by striking »

tclancy wrote: post #16
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to provide the flame you're expecting. Master/slave describes the relationship between the services and has been standard terminology for decades. I have yet to hear of any IRL victims of slavery that are miffed by the use of this terminology. Do not be offended on someone else's behalf.

But it's ok to assume a lack of offense on the part of every other person? I think we all get what the terms mean In This Context but there are other options available that don't require that kind of boxing and unboxing. Other projects have done this successfully[0] and the Redis maintainer is right here in the thread saying he understands the concern. The thing I never get with these objections is, what is the harm…

The people who have to change their code to accept the changes lose.

For Django the change was much simpler because it was mostly a docs/tests change. However, here, we'd have to change Redis' API (or include more than one way to do the same thing).

Raising the point is fine. Discussion is important. But making the change, in this case, has some clear downsides that antirez has carefully weighed against the pros.

Re: Redis 4.0

#44

Post by schneems »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #23
tclancy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's ok to assume a lack of offense on the part of every other person? I think we all get what the terms mean In This Context but there are other options available that don't require that kind of boxing and unboxing. Other projects have done this successfully[0] and the Redis maintainer is right here in the thread saying he understands the concern. The thing I never get with these objections is, what is the harm…

It's pretty "lame" to push established projects to make confusing terminology changes to address whatever words the "peanut gallery" is upset about this week. Try not to be so "uppity", "guy".

"Slave" is technically incorrect. There are better terms to describe the behavior such as "follower" or "replica".

If someone has been around long enough to understand what a "slave" is can't figure out what a "replica" or a "follower" does, maybe they shouldn't be in tech. The transition cost for documentation is essentially zero.

Naming things is hard, and better names are better for everyone. Antirez said he would change the name if he could start over, hence the hill you're dying on is not shared by the author of the library you're posting on.

Edit: For clarity of argument.

Re: Redis 4.0

#45

Post by schneems »

Galanwe wrote: post #12
numbsafari wrote: post #5

I really wish Redis wouldn't use the "master/slave" terminology. Primary/replica or even Master/replica are better terms. I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but it's a pox on a project that I otherwise very much love.

Seriously... someone so stupid to not even be able to place words in a context would probably always find something to rant about, whatever censorship you could think of...

How is changing documentation to more accurately reflect its behavior censorship?

Do you think whitespace commits are censorship? Both make for better reading and more accurate representations of our technology.

Re: Redis 4.0

#46

Post by pepve »

dboreham wrote: post #37
pinum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This terminology has been used for a long time in computing. It's immediately recognised by everyone and in no way endorses human slavery. I'm getting quite fed up of the OTT political correctness movement in tech. Out of interest, what is your opinion on male/female USB connectors? Does one deserve to get fired if they make a joke about "big dongles"?

True, but it has also been common practice for at least 20 years in the US to not use the term slave. Source: I worked on replication since 1996 and we were asked to use "supplier" and "consumer" at that time. Actually I've been surprised to see slave making a come back recently. Wondered if people hadn't received the memo or perhaps were outside the US cultural influence.

"outside the US cultural influence"

Where is this magical place you speak of?

Re: Redis 4.0

#47

Post by mikehall314 »

A-A-Ron wrote: post #33
antirez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not for the change in terminology at this step, because it is very unfortunate to change the terminology of a project that is here for years, however I tried to use the fact we have this terminology to remind people of what slavery looked (and still looks in certain parts of the world) like, so: 1) We have a SLAVEOF NO ONE command which is very popular. 2) We have a note about slavery here: https://redis.io/comma…

If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. -- Abraham Lincoln I've been trying to get an intuition (make myself feel good) about the material conditional logical connective and this seems to satisfy the case for a false antecedent and false consequent (¬p→¬q). The equally true statement seems to check out: If slavery is not wrong, something is wrong. (¬p→q) However this also evaluates to True which annoys me: If slav…

If at least one thing is wrong, slavery is wrong?

Re: Redis 4.0

#48

Post by matt4077 »

A-A-Ron wrote: post #33
antirez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not for the change in terminology at this step, because it is very unfortunate to change the terminology of a project that is here for years, however I tried to use the fact we have this terminology to remind people of what slavery looked (and still looks in certain parts of the world) like, so: 1) We have a SLAVEOF NO ONE command which is very popular. 2) We have a note about slavery here: https://redis.io/comma…

If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. -- Abraham Lincoln I've been trying to get an intuition (make myself feel good) about the material conditional logical connective and this seems to satisfy the case for a false antecedent and false consequent (¬p→¬q). The equally true statement seems to check out: If slavery is not wrong, something is wrong. (¬p→q) However this also evaluates to True which annoys me: If slav…

I'm not sure if you're trying to make a joke. In any case, quotes such as this are ill-suited for learning formal logic, because they rely on a lot more than their literal meaning.

In this case, you cannot see the statement as being about boolean true/false values. It only works on an ordinal scale, and our calibration of the cutoff for "wrongness". Slavery here is assumed axiomatically to be "really really bad". In fact, among all the bad things, it is the worst. But is it wrong? That depends on how bad something must be to be wrong. But if you do not consider slavery to be wrong, but merely bad, nothing can be wrong, because everything is less bad than slavery.

So this is basically Lincoln trying to argue for AUC as a better metric than sensitivity/specificity.

Re: Redis 4.0

#49

Post by schneems »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #6
numbsafari wrote: post #5

I really wish Redis wouldn't use the "master/slave" terminology. Primary/replica or even Master/replica are better terms. I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but it's a pox on a project that I otherwise very much love.

The words only have meaning if you give them meaning, and while a smaller progressive org might care, it doesn't seem to be a fight worth having. No one thinks your technical terminology supports the historical subjucation of a race, and I wish we could be adults and get on to real work. Outrage fatigue is a thing. I just want to build, and save the politics for my off hours. Edit: mods, feel free to detach as off to…

Okay then, be mad that "slave" isn't a technically correct term either. "replica" or "follower" both describe the behavior much better.

> it doesn't seem to be a fight worth having

Technical correctness is a fight worth having. Human decency is a nice side effect.

> the words only have meaning if you give them meaning

That's not how words work.

Re: Redis 4.0

#50

Post by toomuchtodo »

schneems wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words only have meaning if you give them meaning, and while a smaller progressive org might care, it doesn't seem to be a fight worth having. No one thinks your technical terminology supports the historical subjucation of a race, and I wish we could be adults and get on to real work. Outrage fatigue is a thing. I just want to build, and save the politics for my off hours. Edit: mods, feel free to detach as off to…

Okay then, be mad that "slave" isn't a technically correct term either. "replica" or "follower" both describe the behavior much better. > it doesn't seem to be a fight worth having Technical correctness is a fight worth having. Human decency is a nice side effect. > the words only have meaning if you give them meaning That's not how words work.

The context of how I use the word "fuck" dramatically changes what it means. Whether you're offended by the word is entirely up to the listener as well.
Post reply on HN