lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Recommend denylist/allowlist instead of blacklist/whitelist
    Date
    On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:16:09 +0200 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:

    > On 11. 06. 20, 9:38, SeongJae Park wrote:
    > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:35:24 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 08:25 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
    > >>> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
    > >>>
    > >>> This patchset 1) adds support of deprecated terms in the 'checkpatch.pl'
    > >>> and 2) set the 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' as deprecated with
    > >>> replacement suggestion of 'denylist' and 'allowlist', because the
    > >>> suggestions are incontrovertible, doesn't make people hurt, and more
    > >>> self-explanatory.
    > >>
    > >> While the checkpatch implementation is better,
    > >> I'm still very "meh" about the whole concept.
    > >
    > > I can understand your concerns about politic things in the second patch.
    > > However, the concept of the 'deprecated terms' in the first patch is not
    > > political but applicable to the general cases. We already had the commits[1]
    > > for a similar case. So, could you ack for at least the first patch?
    > >
    > > [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Hugs
    >
    > Fuck you! replaced by hug you! is a completely different story. The
    > former is indeed offending to majority (despite it's quite common to
    > tell someone "fuck you" in my subregion; OTOH hugging, no way -- I'm a
    > straight non-communist). If it turns out that any word (e.g. blacklist)
    > offends _majority_ (or at least a significant part of it) of some
    > minority or culture, then sure, we should send it to /dev/null. But we
    > should by no means listen to extreme individuals.

    Thank you for the opinion. But, my point here is, deprecating some terms would
    occur in general as the f-word to hug replacement was, and the first patch is a
    simple technical preparation for such case. And, therefore, it would not need
    to be blocked due to the second patch.

    For example, as it seems at least you and I agree on the f-word to hug
    replacement, we could add ``fuck||hug`` in the `deprecated_terms.txt` file to
    avoid future spread of the f-words.

    Also, I personally don't think the second patch as a political extreme change
    but just a right thing to do. Nonetheless, I also understand people could
    think in different ways. Moreover, it is obviously non-technical thing which I
    am really bad at.

    For the reason, I am CC-ing the code of conduct committees[1]. I would like to
    hear their opinions on this.

    [1] https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html


    Thanks,
    SeongJae Park

    >
    > thanks,
    > --
    > js
    > suse labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-06-11 10:31    [W:4.059 / U:0.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site