similar to: On retiring some terminology

FYI: PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1328 adds handling of `PRIMARY` alias to `MASTER` on protocol side, hopefully completing the puzzle for issue #840. Reviews and testing would be welcome :) On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 00:34 Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks again for all the suggestions. > > For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out

FYI: PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1328 adds handling of `PRIMARY` alias to `MASTER` on protocol side, hopefully completing the puzzle for issue #840. Reviews and testing would be welcome :) On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 00:34 Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks again for all the suggestions. > > For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20220323/c7ad42ec/attachment.htm>

Thanks again for all the suggestions. For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out where the changes are needed - based on my earlier work with the originally proposed terminology. Now that we know where to change it, should not be too great a hassle to replace again by some other choice... subordinate was a bit too long to type :) To make the election of team choice more simple, I

Thanks again for all the suggestions. For now I've prepared draft PRs, mostly to map out where the changes are needed - based on my earlier work with the originally proposed terminology. Now that we know where to change it, should not be too great a hassle to replace again by some other choice... subordinate was a bit too long to type :) To make the election of team choice more simple, I

That's odd, seems a spam or phish sneaked through to the list. NOT from me :) Jim On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 21:38 Jim Klimov via Nut-upsuser via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > Hello again, > Please find lower the overall documentation: > > > >

Hello all, As some people watching GitHub closely might have noticed, the majority of proposed changes (for primary/secondary in the end) were merged around weekend. This impacts text documentation and keyword support for upsmon configuration, testing welcome :) Some work remains for image files in documentation, and the protocol/ABI were not touched so far. Following the recent eminent

Hello all, As some people watching GitHub closely might have noticed, the majority of proposed changes (for primary/secondary in the end) were merged around weekend. This impacts text documentation and keyword support for upsmon configuration, testing welcome :) Some work remains for image files in documentation, and the protocol/ABI were not touched so far. Following the recent eminent

On 20.03.22 16:02, Roger Price wrote: >I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE): > > The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of > implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a > protocol.? The best example of such a failure is the browser version > field in HTTP.? A complete disaster.? You should warn

Jim, The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is publisher-subscriber. Larry Baker US Geological Survey 650-329-5608 baker at usgs.gov<mailto:baker at usgs.gov> On Mar 12 2021, at 6:24:38 PM, Phil Stracchino via Nut-upsuser <nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net<mailto:nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net>> wrote: This email has been received from

Jim, The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is publisher-subscriber. Larry Baker US Geological Survey 650-329-5608 baker at usgs.gov<mailto:baker at usgs.gov> On Mar 12 2021, at 6:24:38 PM, Phil Stracchino via Nut-upsuser <nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net<mailto:nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net>> wrote: This email has been received from

That is terminology from Computer Science. (Decades ago?) It is familiar. Not invented by Cisco. As in, producer-consumer, from the same time. Those were all different paradigms for client-server relationships. There must be Wikipedia citations that can be consulted. As I recall, there were distinctions, such as, producer-consumer were tightly bound, where the producer had no purpose

That is terminology from Computer Science. (Decades ago?) It is familiar. Not invented by Cisco. As in, producer-consumer, from the same time. Those were all different paradigms for client-server relationships. There must be Wikipedia citations that can be consulted. As I recall, there were distinctions, such as, producer-consumer were tightly bound, where the producer had no purpose

So, for the past couple of days the SurveyMonkey results are not changing, with 13 replies overall. Should we wait for more or everyone passionate enough has already spoken? In practice I'd likely follow up on a weekend anyway, but... the weekend is coming! :) Currently we have a clear leader pair that collected almost half the votes (6), two votes were to keep old words in place - alas,

So, for the past couple of days the SurveyMonkey results are not changing, with 13 replies overall. Should we wait for more or everyone passionate enough has already spoken? In practice I'd likely follow up on a weekend anyway, but... the weekend is coming! :) Currently we have a clear leader pair that collected almost half the votes (6), two votes were to keep old words in place - alas,

On 3/12/21 9:14 PM, Rusty Bower wrote: > Manager/subscriber seems most accurate > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 12, 2021, at 20:13, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: >> >> ? >> In place of secondary how about subscriber? It would be accurate to >> the role. I'd been going to suggest controller and ... something.

On 3/12/21 9:14 PM, Rusty Bower wrote: > Manager/subscriber seems most accurate > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 12, 2021, at 20:13, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: >> >> ? >> In place of secondary how about subscriber? It would be accurate to >> the role. I'd been going to suggest controller and ... something.

I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > Jim, > > The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is > publisher-subscriber. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12

I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > Jim, > > The terminology I recall for that one-to-many relationship is > publisher-subscriber. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12

There is, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish%E2%80%93subscribe_pattern I said I stayed away from it because of the Cisco link. Others as well as you are free to persue it. I was just making suggestions. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:43 PM Baker, Lawrence M <baker at usgs.gov> wrote: > That is terminology from Computer Science. (Decades ago?) It is > familiar. Not invented by