Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

inclusive language tags: jenkins_slave_type renamed to jenkins_node_type #499

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nitrocode
Copy link

@nitrocode nitrocode commented Sep 16, 2020

I know there are many other master/slave references. This one will only correct the issue with jenkins ec2 worker tags.

This is also consistent with Jenkins using the word node for their workers.

Ref: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html

Ticket: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-63660

@nitrocode
Copy link
Author

Hi @fcojfernandez @res0nance @MRamonLeon

What are some of the thoughts on this ?

@res0nance
Copy link
Contributor

This is going to break the node counting. Not sure how to best handle this

@nitrocode
Copy link
Author

Where is node counting codified?

@res0nance
Copy link
Contributor

private List<Filter> getGenericFilters(String jenkinsServerUrl, SlaveTemplate template) {

@nitrocode
Copy link
Author

nitrocode commented Sep 28, 2020

Thanks. It sounds like it might be best to have logic to count both the jenkins_slave_type and jenkins_node_type tag names but tag the latter going forward for newly created instances. For the getGenericFilters, we could count both tag names. I'll put in some more work.

Relevant code references (for myself):

@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev added this to In progress in Terminology cleanup May 17, 2021
@dannykansas
Copy link

What additional changes are needed, if any, for this to be ready for the next release?

@res0nance
Copy link
Contributor

What additional changes are needed, if any, for this to be ready for the next release?

Something to make it backwards compatible, as is this will break backwards compatibility

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
3 participants