1) We have a SLAVEOF NO ONE command which is very popular.
2) We have a note about slavery here: https://redis.io/commands/slaveof
For new projects I suggest to pick other terms as well, even because master and slave are kinda inelegant IMHO other than linked to bad things.
I can respect (and disagree with!) the backwards compatibility argument.
I've always found you to be a considerate and thoughtful maintainer (no easy thing) whose work I really admire. So, I'm very glad to see that you've taken the steps you have on this front.
Thanks for your reply.
It's a choice whether or not to use these words, and any project can use them or not as they see fit. They are common in the field after all. I definitely think there's a high road here, and you've taken it, cheers!
Bravo and thanks for pushing the envelope forward.
Regardless of whether you agree with the changes, the fact that these discussions are occurring about the code that we write is really great. I love seeing how we can take code to a much different level than the 1s and 0s it is often reduced to in the mind.
I'd love to see some other examples of similar movements in software whereby we are taking great care of the code we write as an author, historian, or any other writer would take care of their own words.
 - https://www.drupal.org/node/2275877
 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
 - https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22667
 - https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185
Worth mentioning that "ciao" originated from "I'm your slave" - maybe in v5 we can have "ciao <master_ip>" :)
> The word derives from the Venetian phrase s-ciào vostro or s-ciào su literally meaning "I am your slave".
Comparing this carefully considered reply to all the others also gives me some more evidence that those that excel at technology are often remarkable people in many other aspects as well.
...is it? i guess my interpretation of saying 'unfortunate' here is that there is some kind of sentimental attachment or something.
are there legitimate practical issues?
If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
-- Abraham Lincoln
If slavery is not wrong, something is wrong. (¬p→q)
If slavery is wrong, something is wrong. (p→q)
If slavery is wrong, nothing is wrong. (p→¬q)
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.
(Bear with me, it's been a while since I've done rigorous proofs.)
Let's say there's a function R that outputs a numerical value of an actions morality.
Let's define an action as wrong if R(action) is below some threshold M.
So what Lincoln is saying is:
R(slavery) >= M -> R(action) >= M for all actions
If we assume Lincoln's statement to be true, that must mean that R(slavery) <= R(action) for all actions.
Which can be reduced to R(slavery) = min(R(actions))
Translated to English, Lincoln is saying that slavery is most morally despicable act.