Re: The request of words matter updated

[Wesley <opndev@protonmail.com>]

On 10/4/22 03:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
>>
>> On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
>>> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
>>> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
>>> sign of a consensus.
>>
>> Do you need consensus on this change? I mean, if someone provided a
>> patch that changes master/slave to something else that makes sense
>> because they want to stay clear of those words, would it not be
>> accepted?
>
> pws posted such a patch upthread.

I read the message, but didn't see the patch below it. My bad.

>> The change is essentially a refactor and should pass all the tests..
>
> Any change has costs.  In this case, the change might shadow or unshadow
> another symbol (pws checked that for the terms his patch uses), would be
> one more manual step for any future «blame» or «log» run, would
> necessitate a rebase for anyone who has local patches to zpty.c, and
> would introduce a https://xkcd.com/927/ problem to anyone reading zsh's
> pseudo-terminal module's C source file.

That is a thing, the linux man page are still using master and slave (as
stated in 50669).

A rebase for those who have custom patches.. it is a cost that they
already have since they have forked the project.

@Sunny (OP)
How is IBM treating the Linux manual page(s), either via RHEL/SUSE or
LinuxOne?

Cheers,
Wesley

--
Wesley Schwengle