* The request of words matter updated @ 2022-09-19 6:52 Xiao Ling XL Chen 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Xiao Ling XL Chen @ 2022-09-19 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --] There 12 slave and 16 master used as variables in source code "Src/Modules/zpty.c". Even though the words "slave" & "master" are used as internal static variables, and not be exposed to external calling or exported it in message, as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level? For example, replace “slave” with "worker", "child", "helper", "replica", "follower", or "secondary [server, node, process, or other noun]", and replace “master” with "controller", "leader", "manager", "main", "coordinator", "parent", or "primary [server, node, process, or other noun]". Thanks. Take care, stay strong, and stay safe. Best regards, Sunny (Xiao Ling Chen, 陈小玲) z/OS USS SU&DBX Development and L3 IBM China Systems & Technology Lab (CSTL) Tel: 86-010-82452454 E-mail: chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com<mailto:chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com> -- [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4093 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-19 6:52 The request of words matter updated Xiao Ling XL Chen @ 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-19 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:58 PM Xiao Ling XL Chen <chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com> wrote: > > ... as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level? I support this effort in general, but at the present time the Linux documentation for pty(7), openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in question. (I haven't checked other platforms.) Should we plan for this change to track the library terminology? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-09-27 4:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-01 4:40 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-27 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:58 PM Xiao Ling XL Chen <chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> ... as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level? > > I support this effort in general +1 > but at the present time the Linux documentation for pty(7), > openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in question. (I haven't > checked other platforms.) FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD do as well. Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" (https://illumos.org/man/4D/pty). AIX uses "controller" and "worker" (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file). > Should we plan for this change to track the library terminology? Are Linux or the BSDs planning on making similar changes? If not, we could be waiting for a very long time. -- vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-27 4:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-27 8:44 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-01 4:40 ` Lawrence Velázquez 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-27 4:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lawrence Velázquez; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote: > > Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" > AIX uses "controller" and "worker" Well, that's no fun. It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt. On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused. > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > > Should we plan for this change to track the library terminology? > > Are Linux or the BSDs planning on making similar changes? I'm sure they're at least aware of the general trend toward eliminating this sort of terminology, I've been seeing it discussed in other contexts for more than a decade. In this particular context I'd probably choose something like superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO. They sound like words chosen for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to actually read. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 4:22 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-27 8:44 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-09-28 20:01 ` Eric Cook 0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-27 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang > On 27/09/2022 05:22 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote: > > > > Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" > > AIX uses "controller" and "worker" > > Well, that's no fun. It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt. > On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about > confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused. My only comment is that if we pick something unique and do the job properly this time, then any further update to fit in with standards is a 30 second automatic replacement. So I don't think it's worth agonising over. > In this particular context I'd probably choose something like > superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what > that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO. They sound like words chosen > for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to > actually read. So e.g. zsuperior and zinferior would give us that ability (but you may well be right superior and inferior are good enough --- replacing master and slave didn't hit any clashes). pws diff --git a/Src/Modules/zpty.c b/Src/Modules/zpty.c index dfd2a2a7a..b9e3b4050 100644 --- a/Src/Modules/zpty.c +++ b/Src/Modules/zpty.c @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ getptycmd(char *name) #endif static int -get_pty(int master, int *retfd) +get_pty(int zsuperior, int *retfd) { static char *name; static int mfd, sfd; @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd) int ret; #endif - if (master) { + if (zsuperior) { #ifdef HAVE_POSIX_OPENPT if ((mfd = posix_openpt(O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY)) < 0) #else @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd) #else /* No /dev/ptmx or no pt functions */ static int -get_pty(int master, int *retfd) +get_pty(int zsuperior, int *retfd) { #ifdef __linux @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd) static int mfd, sfd; char *p1, *p2; - if (master) { + if (zsuperior) { strcpy(name, "/dev/ptyxx"); #if defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__HAIKU__) name[7] = '/'; @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static int newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) { Ptycmd p; - int master, slave, pid, oineval = ineval, ret; + int zsuperior, zinferior, pid, oineval = ineval, ret; char *oscriptname = scriptname, syncch; Eprog prog; @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) return 1; } - if (get_pty(1, &master)) { + if (get_pty(1, &zsuperior)) { zwarnnam(nam, "can't open pseudo terminal: %e", errno); scriptname = oscriptname; ineval = oineval; @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) } if ((pid = fork()) == -1) { zwarnnam(nam, "can't create pty command %s: %e", pname, errno); - close(master); + close(zsuperior); scriptname = oscriptname; ineval = oineval; return 1; @@ -360,9 +360,9 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) } #endif - if (get_pty(0, &slave)) + if (get_pty(0, &zinferior)) exit(1); - SHTTY = slave; + SHTTY = zinferior; attachtty(mypid); #ifdef TIOCGWINSZ /* Set the window size before associating with the terminal * @@ -370,10 +370,10 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) if (interact) { struct ttyinfo info; - if (ioctl(slave, TIOCGWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize) == 0) { + if (ioctl(zinferior, TIOCGWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize) == 0) { info.winsize.ws_row = zterm_lines; info.winsize.ws_col = zterm_columns; - ioctl(slave, TIOCSWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize); + ioctl(zinferior, TIOCSWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize); } } #endif /* TIOCGWINSZ */ @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) if (!echo) { struct ttyinfo info; - if (!ptygettyinfo(slave, &info)) { + if (!ptygettyinfo(zinferior, &info)) { #ifdef HAVE_TERMIOS_H info.tio.c_lflag &= ~ECHO; #else @@ -391,25 +391,25 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) info.tio.lmodes &= ~ECHO; /**** dunno if this is right */ #endif #endif - ptysettyinfo(slave, &info); + ptysettyinfo(zinferior, &info); } } #ifdef TIOCSCTTY - ioctl(slave, TIOCSCTTY, 0); + ioctl(zinferior, TIOCSCTTY, 0); #endif close(0); close(1); close(2); - dup2(slave, 0); - dup2(slave, 1); - dup2(slave, 2); + dup2(zinferior, 0); + dup2(zinferior, 1); + dup2(zinferior, 2); closem(FDT_UNUSED, 0); - close(slave); - close(master); + close(zinferior); + close(zsuperior); close(coprocin); close(coprocout); init_io(NULL); @@ -436,22 +436,22 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) zexit(lastval, ZEXIT_NORMAL); } #ifndef USE_CYGWIN_FIX - master = movefd(master); - if (master == -1) { - zerrnam(nam, "cannot duplicate fd %d: %e", master, errno); + zsuperior = movefd(zsuperior); + if (zsuperior == -1) { + zerrnam(nam, "cannot duplicate fd %d: %e", zsuperior, errno); scriptname = oscriptname; ineval = oineval; return 1; } #else - addmodulefd(master, FDT_INTERNAL); + addmodulefd(zsuperior, FDT_INTERNAL); #endif p = (Ptycmd) zalloc(sizeof(*p)); p->name = ztrdup(pname); p->args = zarrdup(args); - p->fd = master; + p->fd = zsuperior; p->pid = pid; p->echo = echo; p->nblock = nblock; @@ -464,13 +464,13 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) ptycmds = p; if (nblock) - ptynonblock(master); + ptynonblock(zsuperior); scriptname = oscriptname; ineval = oineval; do { - ret = read(master, &syncch, 1); + ret = read(zsuperior, &syncch, 1); } while (ret != 1 && ( #ifdef EWOULDBLOCK errno == EWOULDBLOCK || @@ -481,7 +481,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock) #endif errno == EINTR)); - setiparam_no_convert("REPLY", (zlong)master); + setiparam_no_convert("REPLY", (zlong)zsuperior); return 0; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 8:44 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch ` (5 more replies) 2022-09-28 20:01 ` Eric Cook 1 sibling, 6 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-09-27 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the change feel comfortable saying so publicly. I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn. Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem desirable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-27 21:22 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 12:33 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 9/27/2022 3:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. > > I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters > in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is > a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone > Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn. > Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what > downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem > desirable. > We've been trying to rid ourselves of these words for twenty years in the IT industry. They were used because they accurately describe the relationship and at the dawn of Unix and the Internet, the emotional charge the words carry wasn't recognized. For PTYs I like the terms controller and subsidiary. It seems to describe the relationship better than other suggestions. The use of superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually running into the same problem of being emotionally charged. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:22 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 12:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:33 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On 9/27/2022 4:15 PM, Clinton Bunch wrote: > On 9/27/2022 3:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the >> change feel comfortable saying so publicly. >> >> I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal >> parameters >> in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is >> a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone >> Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn. >> Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what >> downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem >> desirable. >> > We've been trying to rid ourselves of these words for twenty years in > the IT industry. They were used because they accurately describe the > relationship and at the dawn of Unix and the Internet, the emotional > charge the words carry wasn't recognized. > > > For PTYs I like the terms controller and subsidiary. It seems to > describe the relationship better than other suggestions. The use of > superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually > running into the same problem of being emotionally charged. > I will also point out that making it "Somebody Else's Problem" Is a big part of why we haven't successfully rid ourselves of these terms in over two decades of realizing they were problematic. Let's not perpetuate the problem. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:22 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 12:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clinton Bunch; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:22:20 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote: > I will also point out that making it "Somebody Else's Problem" Is a big=20 > part of why we haven't successfully rid ourselves of these terms in over=20 > two decades of realizing they were problematic. Let's not perpetuate the=20 > problem. The terms are not problematic, except of course in the paranoid delusions of those who believe. SEP is a bad attitude to life in general, but a life-preserving strategy when in a project with limited goals. Without a healthy degree of SEP, UNIX would have to be maintained as a single piece. While the latter would be a noble goal, the current situation does not allow for it to be realized. Unfortunately. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-27 21:22 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 12:33 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clinton Bunch, zsh-workers On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:15:04 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote: > For PTYs=C2=A0 I like the terms controller and subsidiary.=C2=A0 It seems= > to=20 > describe the relationship better than other suggestions.=C2=A0 BS. See me previous message. > The use of= > =20 > superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually=20 > running into the same problem of being emotionally charged. These are technical terms. Within context, they are only emotionally charged for people who underrate the technical meanings of those words. Next me'll complain that cat(1) is a speciecist name for a program. Or that biff(1) *really* is out-of-date not just in function, but also in name, and we should change it promptly. Or that wump(6) is demeaning to real wumpuses. Or... Let's not go down that road, people. Please. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras ` (2 more replies) 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-09-27 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to keep it, then we should not keep it. -- Mikael Magnusson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 6:30 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:35 ` Axel Beckert 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. > > If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to > keep it, then we should not keep it. There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori. If *you* believe it has to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof. Just like any other change. -- Felipe Contreras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 6:30 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-28 12:57 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:23 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-28 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --] Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc? If not, then because it clearly benefits some people, the cost-benefit calculus favors change. I don't like it, but my opinion doesn't matter because the change harms nothing. On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: >> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the >> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. >> >> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to >> keep it, then we should not keep it. > >There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori. If *you* believe it has >to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof. > >Just like any other change. > >-- >Felipe Contreras > -- Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she) sysadmin umbrellix.net [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1637 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 6:30 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-28 12:57 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:23 ` Lawrence Velázquez 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, zsh-workers On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 06:30:56 +0000, Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@umbrellix.net> wrote: > ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc? Yes. It will create inconsistency and confusion. > If not, then because it clearly benefits some people, the cost-benefit cal= > culus favors change=2E > > I don't like it, but my opinion doesn't matter because the change harms no= > thing=2E Even if you see no harm: that attitude tends to lead to MIME garbage, the careless dropping of 'Cc:'s, and top-posting. Luckily, your response doesn't suffer from any of that, does it? Pfew. --zeurkous. > > On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras <felipe=2Econtreras@gm= > ail=2Ecom> wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail=2Ecom> wr= > ote: >>> >>> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d=2Es@daniel=2Eshahaf=2Ename> wrote: >>> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the >>> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly=2E >>> >>> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to >>> keep it, then we should not keep it=2E >> >>There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori=2E If *you* believe it has >>to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof=2E >> >>Just like any other change=2E >> >>--=20 >>Felipe Contreras >> > > --=20 > Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she) > sysadmin umbrellix=2Enet > ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ > Content-Type: text/html; > charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <html><head></head><body>Will this change actually harm anything - foreign = > libraries, etc?<br><br>If not, then because it clearly benefits some people= > , the cost-benefit calculus favors change=2E<br><br>I don't like it, but my= > opinion doesn't matter because the change harms nothing=2E<br><br><div cla= > ss=3D"gmail_quote">On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras <= > felipe=2Econtreras@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" = > style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, = > 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> > <pre dir=3D"auto" class=3D"k9mail">On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael = > Magnusson <mikachu@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= > quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf= > ; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d=2Es@daniel=2Esha= > haf=2Ename> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= > 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">-= > 1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the<br>chan= > ge feel comfortable saying so publicly=2E<br></blockquote><br> If a word is= > so bad that people don't want to say that they want to<br> keep it, then w= > e should not keep it=2E<br></blockquote><br>There's nothing "bad" about the= > word a priori=2E If *you* believe it has<br>to be changed, then *you* have= > the burden of proof=2E<br><br>Just like any other change=2E<br><br><div cl= > ass=3D"k9mail-signature">-- <br>Felipe Contreras<br><br></div></pre></block= > quote></div><div style=3D'white-space: pre-wrap'><div class=3D'k9mail-signa= > ture'>-- <br>Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she)<br>sysadmin umbrellix=2Enet</div></= > div></body></html> > ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ-- > -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 6:30 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-28 12:57 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 8:23 ` Lawrence Velázquez 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-29 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir; +Cc: zsh-workers On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 2:30 AM, Ellenor Bjornsdottir wrote: > Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc? As far as I can tell, no. The renamed variables are function-local. -- vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:35 ` Axel Beckert 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Daniel Shahaf On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 23:32:03 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: >> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the >> change feel comfortable saying so publicly. > > If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to > keep it, then we should not keep it. And that attitude, {ladies,gentlemen,...}, leads to a propagandistic minority having the ability to dictate the majority. Sad, isn't it? --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 8:35 ` Axel Beckert 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Hi, On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:32:03PM +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. > > If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to > keep it, then we should not keep it. IMHO it's the opposite way: If a change causes people to stay silent because they fear a hate campaign if they say that they don't like such a change, then that change shouldn't be done alone for that. Kind regards, Axel -- PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5 /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/ Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org X https://axel.beckert.ch/ / \ I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 12:52 ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:08 ` zeurkous, zeurkous ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:00 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. Agreed. I am one of the few people comfortable with disagreeing to such changes publicly: https://felipec.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/git-master/ Plenty of people have sent me private words of encouragement stating this master/slave terminology change is nonsense, but they don't dare to say so publicly. Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -- Felipe Contreras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 13:05 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 4:08 ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-28 12:52 ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous 1 sibling, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras, Daniel Shahaf Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On 9/28/2022 1:14 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:00 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: >> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the >> change feel comfortable saying so publicly. > Agreed. I am one of the few people comfortable with disagreeing to > such changes publicly: > > https://felipec.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/git-master/ > > Plenty of people have sent me private words of encouragement stating > this master/slave terminology change is nonsense, but they don't dare > to say so publicly. > > Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > Because they're silent, there is no way to tell if they are a majority. Personally, I think the silence comes from the fact 90-95% of people just don't care. These words cause some people pain. You may think the source of that pain is silly, but it doesn't make the pain any less real. (Ask anyone who's been clinically depressed about feeling pain other people tell you you shouldn't feel) It's a small change that alleviates pain. That should be reason enough to do it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 13:05 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:49 ` Axel Beckert 2022-09-29 4:08 ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clinton Bunch Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Felipe Contreras, Daniel Shahaf On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:16:16 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote: > On 9/28/2022 1:14 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Because they're silent, there is no way to tell if they are a majority.=C2= > =A0=20 > Personally, I think the silence comes from the fact 90-95% of people=20 > just don't care. They will care once it's forced down on them. When it's too late. While IMO it's often stupid to stay silent, they don't deserve such treatment. > These words cause some people pain.=C2=A0 All words have the potential to cause pain. > You may think the source of tha= > t=20 > pain is silly, Slavery is not a silly matter IMO. That's not the dicussion here anyways. > but it doesn't make the pain any less real. (Ask anyone=20 > who's been clinically depressed about feeling pain other people tell you=20 > you shouldn't feel) > > It's a small change that alleviates pain.=C2=A0 That should be reason eno= > ugh=20 > to do it. As has been explained multiple times, by different people: the change you are proposing is not small. And while me's truly sorry if certain technical terms cause you (or anyone else) pain, depression, or worse: they are technical, and when taken in context, they have no emotional load beyond what we personally, and individually, assign to them. Are you going to try and persuade physicists to drop Schroedinger's Cat, because randomly gunning down cats is just cruel? Good luck. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 13:05 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 8:49 ` Axel Beckert 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Hi, On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:05:43PM +0000, zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org wrote: > Slavery is not a silly matter IMO. Ack. But slavery has no real relation to these terms anymore. They're about processes and sockets and whatever, not about people. Child processes are also not the result of two processes engaging with each other, yet they're named "child" because child and parent are also technical terms for quite a long time now, too. > That's not the dicussion here anyways. Exactly. And it's not what these terms are about. They're technical terms. Not related to people. > And while me's truly sorry if certain technical terms cause you (or > anyone else) pain, depression, or worse: they are technical, and when > taken in context, they have no emotional load beyond what we personally, > and individually, assign to them. Thanks. Kind regards, Axel -- PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5 /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/ Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org X https://axel.beckert.ch/ / \ I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 13:05 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 4:08 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-29 10:48 ` De Zeurkous 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-29 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clinton Bunch, Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers Cc: Peter Stephenson, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here: * what I'll call the IBM parties, who are here on business related to the Words Matter policy, holding that "master/slave" terminology is to be avoided when synonymous terminology is available * people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the policy * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the policy People speaking in support invoke the fact that the words cause pain for some marginalized people working in tech. I am not the kind of marginalized person for whom this would matter (I'm not racialized nor am I a survivor of human trafficking), so I cannot speak to this, but I will say that this charges the perception of some people who are as unmarginalized as myself related to this topic. They also invoke the feeling of shame the opposition feels on public participation in the debate, as an indication that this is an idea whose time has come. I don't like this, but I don't think it factors. One of the two parties I've seen to openly oppose the motion have invoked the fact that, _a priori_, there's nothing bad about these words, which is on its face true - if you do not consider the harm that they can do to a certain marginalized community that I see underrepresented in tech, possibly due to this reason. The other party has sent messages to this list that vary between ... not warranting a response, and where they do warrant a response, being extremely petty about mail formatting (quoted-printable) to multiple people. Said second party also invokes the feeling of shame the opposition feels on the matter as "a propagandistic minority having the ability to dictate to the majority." Again, I don't think the shame of a silent majority or minority factors. I think one can do a harms and benefits analysis using solely practical facts. The only inconsistency and confusion I can see occurring is if the words are used in a public interface, and in the first few weeks to months as people get up to speed on the new, otherwise synonymous terminology in private interfaces. For public interfaces, a transitional approach may be appropriate where the deprecated terminology is used for aliases to the new terminology, and is slated to be removed at the developer's convenience (which may be never). To recapitulate somewhat, it appears from previous factual discussion on the matter that the cost of making this change would be a few cycles expended in `sed`, temporary perverse merriment as developers adjust, and nothing else - and the benefit would be that people triggered by human trafficking terminology would be able to participate more effectively in zsh development moving forward. The interface in question is private, so there's no need to worry about transitioning public interfaces. Plugins that use this code may need to be updated with version-based ifdefs - but do any plugins use this code? I am not a developer, so I don't want to weigh in on a matter that does not affect me, but I hope my analysis is useful for those who are developers to make a reasoned decision. -- Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she) sysadmin umbrellix.net jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-29 4:08 ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-29 10:48 ` De Zeurkous 2022-09-29 12:11 ` FU: " zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: De Zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir Cc: Peter Stephenson, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Clinton Bunch, Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 04:08:21 +0000, Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@umbrellix.net> wrote: > There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here: > =C2=A0* what I'll call the IBM parties, who are here on business related > to the Words Matter policy, holding that "master/slave" terminology > is to be avoided when synonymous terminology is available > =C2=A0* people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the > policy > * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the > policy That appears to be an accurate summary, except that you forgot one contigent-- * people speaking out that they don't care whether or not zsh comes into adherence with the policy > People speaking in support invoke the fact that the words cause pain > for some marginalized people working in tech. I am not the kind of > marginalized person for whom this would matter (I'm not racialized > nor am I a survivor of human trafficking), Some would say that being a girl in "tech" (that word is so overused by the mainstream that it has become near-meaningless -- hell, they've been referring to utterly bureaucratic matters as "technical"!) puts one in a marginalized position. (Me's not sure me agrees with that one, however -- don't shoot the messenger.) > so I cannot speak to this, > but I will say that this charges the perception of some people who are > as unmarginalized as myself related to this topic. Me's not sure what that's supposed to mean. > They also invoke the feeling of shame the opposition feels on public > participation in the debate, as an indication that this is an idea > whose time has come. I don't like this, but I don't think it factors. If that's so: it doesn't work on me. Nor does it seem to work on most main contributors. > One of the two parties I've seen to openly oppose the motion have > invoked the fact that, _a priori_, there's nothing bad about these > words, which is on its face true - if you do not consider the harm > that they can do to a certain marginalized community that I see > underrepresented in tech, possibly due to this reason. Technological affairs are by definition harsh, as technology can't be fooled. That by itself requires people, black or purple, cat or human, to be rather thick-skinned (or is the latter now a racial appellation, too? :x). > The other party > has sent messages to this list that vary between ... not warranting a > response, and where they do warrant a response, being extremely > petty about mail formatting (quoted-printable) to multiple people. Lol. Defending the most basic of technical standards is now "petty"? 8)7 (Your off-list message was base64-encoded, btw. Medid, of course, not bother to decode yet another layer.) > Said second party also invokes the feeling of shame the opposition > feels on the matter as "a propagandistic minority having the ability > to dictate to the majority." Again, I don't think the shame of a > silent majority or minority factors. I think one can do a harms and > benefits analysis using solely practical facts. Yes. But projects like these run (more or less) on consensus. If people are shamed into not expressing their honest views, false consensuses will form. That would be a significant loss to the project. > The only inconsistency and confusion I can see occurring is if the > words are used in a public interface, and in the first few weeks to > months as people get up to speed on the new, otherwise synonymous > terminology in private interfaces. For public interfaces, a > transitional approach may be appropriate where the deprecated > terminology is used for aliases to the new terminology, and is slated > to be removed at the developer's convenience (which may be never). Look, instead of wasting time on all that, have you considered that the design of the pty system itself might be flawed? That it may well be more appropriate to have general loopback devices, that can be put to many more uses. In that case, the term "master" would naturally be replaced with something like "server", and "slave" with something like "client" (read up on microkernels if you're not familiar with the concept). While that would be far beyond the purview of the zsh project alone, it would at least give a good opportunity to change the terms. And hell, it's been decades since ptys were zeroth implemented. It's about time for a revision (or, as me's proposing: the development of a more general mechanism that would eclipse both ptys and the "problematic" terms). Why not focus on that, instead of trying to nail Jell-O(tm) to a tree here....? > To recapitulate somewhat, it appears from previous factual discussion > on the matter that the cost of making this change would be a few > cycles expended in `sed`, temporary perverse merriment as developers > adjust, and nothing else - and the benefit would be that people > triggered by human trafficking terminology would be able to > participate more effectively in zsh development moving forward. "human trafficking terminology"? You aren't serious, are you? Ever heard of wage slavery? > The > interface in question is private, Yet, it has to align with the public one to be meaningful. > so there's no need to worry about > transitioning public interfaces. Plugins that use this code may need > to be updated with version-based ifdefs - but do any plugins use this > code? I am not a developer, so I don't want to weigh in on a matter > that does not affect me, but I hope my analysis is useful for those > who are developers to make a reasoned decision. Yes. It makes it quite clear that it's all a bunch of windbaggery[0], perpetuated by those seeking attention for its own sake, and we have better ways to spend our time. Baai, --zeurkous. [0] Too bad me's the bigger windbag, eh? > > --=20 > Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she) > sysadmin umbrellix.net > jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net > > -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* FU: RE: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-29 10:48 ` De Zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 12:11 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Sorry for not including a proper 'From:' header in me message (me blames me then-sleepy head, combined with a two-layer mail setup that me really should get around to fixing). Medid send a fixed version, yet in the hurry to do so me didn't update the Message-ID, so it does not appear to have made it to this list. Again me apologies (also for this noise), --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-29 4:08 ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-29 10:48 ` De Zeurkous @ 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-30 5:14 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras 1 sibling, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-30 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir Cc: Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang Thoughts and questions. I see a number of people have capitalized "Words Matter". I also find it interesting that this thread was initiated by IBM employees in China who are apparently not regular participants in zsh-workers or zsh-users. Is there an IBM corporate initiative called "Words Matter" that led to this discussion being opened at this particular time? As has been mentioned, this topic has been around a long time (2007 at least; https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/). Obviously the term "master" has definitions and connotations that reference skill level, origin of concept or data, etc. Those connotations are typically clear from context. On the other hand, the word "slave" always refers to subservience and captivity (whether or not accepted by "consenting adults"), and therefore carries the emotional baggage that also attaches to "master" when the words are paired. (The Snopes article is some evidence that this is not just a "white knight" issue.) Arguments focused on those other connotations of "master" are missing the point. Whether or not one thinks emotional baggage is being self-righteously exaggerated or is a valid basis to make a technical change, it can't just be waved away with "but that shouldn't matter in this abstraction." If they weren't evocative, those words wouldn't have been chosen to begin with. (In grad school I worked on a project to compute fractal graphics with a multiprocessor computer. I called the nodes that did the computation "students" and the thread that collected the results and rendered an image the "faculty". When I explained during a presentation that the former did all the work and the latter got all the credit, the reaction was ... mixed.) In any case this mailing list is not the place to speculate about motivations or debate the evolution of language. We have a request before us from an interested third party and a proposed partial response to that request. (List of files mentioning "slave" follows, to explain why I say "partial".) Questions I think it is reasonable to discuss are: Assuming the original request is part of an IBM initiative, does rejecting it have an impact on the availability/adoption of zsh? Is it likely that other influential companies are going to follow suit? E.g., Apple appears to have adopted zsh as a default shell in MacOS. Is a similar request eventually to come from that quarter? If we don't act, are they likely to fork the code and do it themselves? Is a change in terminology going to cause confusion with upstream source or with packages we don't control? E.g., several of the files below are completions, and arguably it would not make sense to remove strings still in use by the corresponding commands/contexts. (We've already answered this for zpty.c in particular.) Is a change going to have a detrimental user-visible effect? (This is a more general version of the previous question.) If the foregoing are all "no", what's the degree of effort and who is prepared to work on it (rather than just spend time debating it)? Here's the list of files mentioning "slave"; answers to some of the above may vary per file: ./Functions/TCP/tcp_spam ./Src/Modules/zpty.c ./Etc/ChangeLog-3.1 ./ChangeLog ./Completion/Linux/Command/_ethtool ./Completion/Linux/Command/_lsblk ./Completion/Linux/Command/_unshare ./Completion/Linux/Command/_sshfs ./Completion/Linux/Command/_networkmanager ./Completion/X/Command/_xinput ./Completion/X/Command/_mplayer ./Completion/Debian/Command/_update-alternatives ./Completion/Unix/Command/_mysql_utils ./Completion/Unix/Command/_mount There are a lot more mentioning "master" but with the exception of mod_zpty.yo I think they may be considered to fall among the inoffensive connotations of that term. (If someone wants to dig deeper, see "who is prepared to work on it?" above.) For what it's worth, I think the "master" git branch belongs in that category too, and am not advocating to rename that in our project. I am also not advocating for a rewrite of history, so the ChangeLog files are IMO out of bounds. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-30 5:14 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-30 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir Cc: Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:29 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > > If the foregoing are all "no" Sorry, I reworded a couple of questions to make them clearer and that reversed the sense of the answer. Hopefully it's obvious what I meant. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-30 5:14 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous ` (4 more replies) 1 sibling, 5 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > > Thoughts and questions. > > I see a number of people have capitalized "Words Matter". I also find > it interesting that this thread was initiated by IBM employees in > China who are apparently not regular participants in zsh-workers or > zsh-users. Is there an IBM corporate initiative called "Words Matter" > that led to this discussion being opened at this particular time? As > has been mentioned, this topic has been around a long time (2007 at > least; https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/). > > Obviously the term "master" has definitions and connotations that > reference skill level, origin of concept or data, etc. Those > connotations are typically clear from context. On the other hand, the > word "slave" always refers to subservience and captivity (whether or > not accepted by "consenting adults"), and therefore carries the > emotional baggage that also attaches to "master" when the words are > paired. (The Snopes article is some evidence that this is not just a > "white knight" issue.) > > Arguments focused on those other connotations of "master" are missing > the point. Whether or not one thinks emotional baggage is being > self-righteously exaggerated or is a valid basis to make a technical > change, it can't just be waved away with "but that shouldn't matter in > this abstraction." If they weren't evocative, those words wouldn't > have been chosen to begin with. All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our cultural zeitgeist. Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc. So, as a cis whilte male my opinion objectively does not matter. Which is why if I say "I have no problem with the term 'master'", nobody cares. On the other hand if a black person says "I have a problem with the term 'master'", everyone cares. The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have a problem with the term "master". Have they? Our sense of empathy has been emotionally blackmailed to have sympathy for these hypothetical people that do not exist. We are bending over backwards thinking about an intrusive change that benefits *no one*, because we are told some oppressed minority might benefit. But this doesn't change the fundamentals of logic: he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. The people who are proposing the change have the burden of proof. Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who finds the term personally offensive? We should not be listening to people being offended *by proxy* saying "I think some people will find the term offensive". Does anybody find the term personally and directly offensive themselves? -- Felipe Contreras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer > <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: >> >> Thoughts and questions. >> >[snip] > > All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our > cultural zeitgeist. > > Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would > be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin > pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion > who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female > never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be > criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society > superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your > skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc. Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us, identity politics have arrived here. Can we just put a dead stop to that now, all of us, *please*? --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous [not found] ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang [Fixed 'From:' address... sigh.] On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer > <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: >> >> Thoughts and questions. >> >[snip] > > All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our > cultural zeitgeist. > > Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would > be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin > pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion > who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female > never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be > criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society > superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your > skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc. Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us, identity politics have arrived here. Can we just put a dead stop to that now, all of us, *please*? --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>]
* Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) [not found] ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> @ 2022-10-08 10:48 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 11:06 ` zeurkous [not found] ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >>[snip] [snipped opinions i don't want to quote] > > Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us. Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending one or a few patches to the list. -- Mikael Magnusson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 10:48 ` Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 11:06 ` zeurkous [not found] ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:48:52 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >>>[snip] > [snipped opinions i don't want to quote] >> >> Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us. > > Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two > people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending > one or a few patches to the list. While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack. Take a break. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>]
* Re: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) [not found] ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> @ 2022-10-08 11:20 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 11:59 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zeurkous; +Cc: zsh-workers On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org <zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:48:52 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote: >>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>[snip] >> [snipped opinions i don't want to quote] >>> >>> Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us. >> >> Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two >> people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending >> one or a few patches to the list. > > While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message > would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack. Is it now an ad hominem attack to say someone is not affiliated with the zsh project? I only clarified because you keep saying "we" even though you're a 3rd party. -- Mikael Magnusson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 11:20 ` Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 11:59 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson; +Cc: zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:20:10 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two >>> people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending >>> one or a few patches to the list. >> >> While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message >> would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack. > > Is it now an ad hominem attack to say someone is not affiliated with > the zsh project? You did not mean to imply that the words of Felipe and me are somehow worth less than those that have submitted a gazillion patches instead of a couple (or, in me case, just one; which was, BTW, accepted (albeit in its 2nd revision))...? > I only clarified because you keep saying "we" even > though you're a 3rd party. Me uses zsh constantly. Me's been following this list for a while. Me has a considerable stake in zsh's future. Given all, me's hardly a 3rd party[0]. 2nd party, perhaps. But not 3rd. --zeurkous. [0] Believe me, me'd rather be a 3rd party, 'cause me's got enough problems already. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras ` (2 preceding siblings ...) [not found] ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> @ 2022-10-08 16:48 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 16:54 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook 4 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Cc: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:41 AM Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > > All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our > cultural zeitgeist. No, you don't. This list is not for discussion of cultural zeitgeist. IBM as a corporate entity may have had such a discussion that led to a company policy that led in turn to their representatives making a request, but the only thing we have to consider is whether it's a reasonable request and whether it has any consequences (beyond setting off a pointless emotional sidebar that's going to convince no one and has already devolved into trolling). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 16:48 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 16:54 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer, zsh-workers Cc: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:48:38 -0700, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:41 AM Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our >> cultural zeitgeist. > > No, you don't. This list is not for discussion of cultural zeitgeist. Yes, but while he may be clumsy in expounding on his point, he does have one. > IBM as a corporate entity may have had such a discussion that led to a > company policy that led in turn to their representatives making a > request, but the only thing we have to consider is whether it's a > reasonable request and whether it has any consequences (beyond setting > off a pointless emotional sidebar that's going to convince no one and > has already devolved into trolling). To do that, we'll have to consider the basis of the request. If me's right and the basis is politics -- and given that OP still hasn't answered Wesley's very valid question -- well, should we, in the context of our apolitical project, really consider it reasonable? --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2022-10-08 16:48 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook ` (2 more replies) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have > a problem with the term "master". Have they? > Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who > finds the term personally offensive? Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:24 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-10-08 18:25 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 18:11 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 19:58 ` Bart Schaefer 2 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote: > On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have >> a problem with the term "master". Have they? > >> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who >> finds the term personally offensive? > > Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. > > These two variables could be named anything, you and zeurkous whining about it is getting incredibly annoying; way more so than any argument put forth in how this would negatively affect zsh thus far. renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep it, changing listmaster@ faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part so i would keep them. if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 18:24 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-10-08 18:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 18:25 ` zeurkous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-10-08 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/8/2022 1:09 PM, Eric Cook wrote: > On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote: >> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have >>> a problem with the term "master". Have they? >> >>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who >>> finds the term personally offensive? >> >> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. >> >> > These two variables could be named anything, you and zeurkous whining > about it is getting > incredibly annoying; way more so than any argument put forth in how > this would negatively > affect zsh thus far. > > renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep > it, changing listmaster@ > faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part > so i would keep them. > > if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice. > It's not the words themselves, at least for me, but the analogy they evoke. This is not the only analogy to describe the relationship between the two parts of a psuedo-terminal, nor even the best IMHO. The word master by itself does not evoke an analogy to slavery. There is also the analogy to a master of a craft, at least. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 18:24 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-10-08 18:43 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clinton Bunch, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:24:22 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote: > It's not the words themselves, at least for me, but the analogy they=20 > evoke.=C2=A0=C2=A0 This is not the only analogy to describe the relations= > hip=20 > between the two parts of a psuedo-terminal, nor even the best IMHO. As me noted before: perhaps the very {master,slave} dichtomy has caused pty(4) to be so full of warts, and so... ungeneric. > The word master by itself does not evoke an analogy to slavery. There is=20 > also the analogy to a master of a craft, at least. Yes. Though to a degree, that can also apply to `slave': "a slave of one's own reputation", for example. Just food for thought... --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:24 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-10-08 18:25 ` zeurkous 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Cook, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 14:09:11 -0400, Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote: > On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote: >> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have >>> a problem with the term "master". Have they? >> >>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who >>> finds the term personally offensive? >> >> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. >> >> > These two variables could be named anything, In theory, yes, of course. In practice, things are often named a certain way for a reason. Whether that reason is good or not has apparently become subject of debate, for this instance. > you and zeurkous whining abou= > t it is getting > incredibly annoying; Perspective. People whining about technical terms "causing them pain" is pretty annoying to me, provided said terms are descriptive. > way more so than any argument put forth in how this w= > ould negatively > affect zsh thus far. Me's put forward such arguments. Why don't you respond to them? (Me might be a whining bastard, but me can do more than just whine.) > renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep it,= > changing listmaster@ > faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part so = > i would keep them. There are no corresponding 'slave' parts in those cases, though, are there...? > if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice. Then push it. If it sufficiently annoys you, you should push it. Me's just worried about setting a potential precedent. That's all. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 18:11 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 19:58 ` Bart Schaefer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Cook, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:55:14 -0400, Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote: > On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have >> a problem with the term "master". Have they? > >> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who >> finds the term personally offensive? > > Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. That's a piece of concrete data among all the theoretical debate -- thanks :) --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:11 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 19:58 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 20:17 ` zeurkous 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote: > > Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. This is the point (which I tried to make in my "thoughts" message): The term of offense is not "master" by itself, but that's the word that all arguments against making a change have latched onto. A secondary point is that its hypocritical to claim both that this should be an apolitical technical decision and also to assert that it's only a valid issue if certain recognizable segments of the user base are those expressing an opinion. There is no use of "slave" I can find that does not imply being unwillingly bound or restricted. Playacting at same does not constitute an exception. That a particular use does not refer to human trafficking does not remove the implication or the analogy. Changing unrelated uses of "master" is not even up for debate here. However, what should be considered is the ten or so other and more visible (because they're in shell scripts) uses of "slave". As far as I'm concerned, that's the only reason this discussion hasn't already been called by fiat (as in, by PWS pushing the patch he's already proposed, or something very much like it). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) 2022-10-08 19:58 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 20:17 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:58:02 -0700, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do. > > This is the point (which I tried to make in my "thoughts" message): > The term of offense is not "master" by itself, but that's the word > that all arguments against making a change have latched onto. Not me. To me, it's about both words, together. > A > secondary point is that its hypocritical to claim both that this > should be an apolitical technical decision and also to assert that > it's only a valid issue if certain recognizable segments of the user > base are those expressing an opinion. Apparently me hasn't been clear: to me, it *is* an apolitical technical decision; yet, me can perfectly live w/ the fact that other people feel differently, and me's been trying to accomodate them, /even as me does not agree/. No hypocrisy there. Just civility. > There is no use of "slave" I can find that does not imply being > unwillingly bound or restricted. Playacting at same does not > constitute an exception. Me's not into BDSM, but me's pretty sure not all of it is "playacting" as such. Perhaps me's splitting hairs... > That a particular use does not refer to > human trafficking does not remove the implication or the analogy. You're right. > Changing unrelated uses of "master" is not even up for debate here. A neutral observation: one change like this tends to lead to others in different places. Thus they may very well being up for debate (or worse: silently taken for granted, just because an earlier change, in the same vein, was accepted). A non-neutral observation: me's concerned about that. > However, what should be considered is the ten or so other and more > visible (because they're in shell scripts) uses of "slave". As far as > I'm concerned, that's the only reason this discussion hasn't already > been called by fiat (as in, by PWS pushing the patch he's already > proposed, or something very much like it). If anyone pushes the change: me'll consider the matter closed. Me disagreement is not worth this churn. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 12:52 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Daniel Shahaf On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 01:14:55 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Amen. Though it does make them all too easy to ignore. (And then there's the matter of whether the majority, silent or not, really ought to be our moral guide... far beyond the scope of this list though.) --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28 12:08 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-29 8:31 ` Axel Beckert 5 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Peter Stephenson Haai, On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:54:46 +0000, "Daniel Shahaf" <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. *nods* So me'll speak up: me's for keeping the current terminology, for the following reasons-- 0) Me certainly hopes that no-one imagines an actual {master,slave} relationship when the words are applied to ptys, hdds, or w/ever. To the degree that they do: they're insufficiently distinguishing technical shorthand from unfortunate tedencies in human history (and, to a degree, sadly not limited to history). 1) The terms are entrenched and replacing them generates confusion, churn in declarations, etc. 2) There are no plausible alternatives as far as me can see. The proposed {owner,subsidiary} -- and similar -- terms again imply a relationship of personal and economic exploitation (just this time covered with a mildly fuzzy blanket). The politically correct interface terms, {primary,secondary}, imply that the limit of the sequence is not 1, which is IMO not helpful here either. If anything, me'd opt for {dom,sub}, but apart from it probably being just as little politically acceptable, that creates confusion with existing technical terms (although such confusion is always, to a degree, unavoidable). 3) We have better ways to spend our time. Me probably wouldn't have responded if me hadn't just come out of the shower ;) HTH, --zeurkous. P.S., OT: Me's been trying to migrate me list membership to me new addy, <zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org>. The confirmation message never arrived and me attempt to contact the maintainer resulted in silence. Can the maintainer please privately contact me to sort this out? TIA :) -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2022-09-28 12:08 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-28 16:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous ` (2 more replies) 2022-09-29 8:31 ` Axel Beckert 5 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-28 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On 27/09/2022 21:54 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters > in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is > a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone > Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn. > Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what > downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem > desirable. As Lawrence and Bart already noted, there's no good steer here from the various technical documents, or even vendors' manual pages. The only hint in this direction might be to use ptm and pts, which doesn't seem very elegant or likely to achieve any kind of consensus, so I won't propose it. I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper" and "lower"? 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. Cheers pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-28 16:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:34:04 +0100 (BST), Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote: > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper" > and "lower"? Or "left" and "right". Or "head" and "tail". Or "straight-angled" and "diagonal"... each terminology has its own downsides, it seems. > 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. To me: no consensus -> no change. But perhaps that's too easy. Either way: me's inclined to call a popular vote on the matter a pointless waste of time. And as for the proposed technology: mecan be assured that it would not require javashi^H^Hcript, cookies, or other such nonsense? And who will take the time to do it? Who won't have anything better to do...? --zeurkous. > > Cheers > pws > -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-28 16:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous ` (2 more replies) 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang > On 28/09/2022 17:34 Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote: > As Lawrence and Bart already noted, there's no good steer here from the > various technical documents, or even vendors' manual pages. Lawrence has some new input here, I'll keep that separate. > 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. This appears to be where we're going. I'll do some research on this, but if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know. Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides. Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's still time. I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View, if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas. At least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will never actually read. Q&A --- Q. Isn't it terrible people have such different ideas from me? A. You might as well complain about night being different from day. And actually I think it's good to have this discussion out in the open rather than just closed groups of true believers. Q. But surely my position is so obviously right it has to win by default? A. No, for the same reason. There's no "obvious" at this level. The fact people come to such different conclusions means it requires some consideration. A vote looks to me the right way of doing this. pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-03 23:24 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang Haai, On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 15:25:13 +0100 (BST), Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> 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. > > This appears to be where we're going. I'll do some research on this, but > if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know. Anonymous voting? Over the Interwebz? That'd be a great idea! :) > Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides. > Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's > still time. (SCNR) You're no better than Hitler! There, rectified that. > I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a > curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View, > if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole > heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us > in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas. At > least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion > on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will > never actually read. Precedent. It has the potential to set a precedent that may lead to far greater upheaval in the future. Me's still pondering Bart's words (they tend to deserve that kind of time). --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 23:24 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-04 0:45 ` Wesley 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-03 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/3/22 10:25, 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. based on the participants of this thread thus far: neutral - mikael - contributor w/commitbit neutral - eric - contributor w/commitbit neutral - ellenor - mailing list denizen yay - bart - core contributor yay - peter - core contributor yay - lawrence - contributor yay - clinton - mailing list denizen yay - IBM - requester nay - daniel - core(?) contributor nay - zeurkous - contributor nay - felipe - contributor nay - wesley - contributor nay - axel - contributor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 23:24 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-10-04 0:45 ` Wesley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Wesley @ 2022-10-04 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 10/3/22 19:24, Eric Cook wrote: > On 10/3/22 10:25, 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. > > based on the participants of this thread thus far: > > nay - wesley - contributor You can change my stance to neutral. I'm not for it, but as stated in my e-mail I think IBM should drive the change (supply the patches) if they want the change to happen. Cheers, Wesley -- Wesley Schwengle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-03 23:24 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang > > 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. > > This appears to be where we're going. I'll do some research on this, but > if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know. > I don't think it's time to vote yet; see <https://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#when-to-vote>. As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants unhappy. Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on. If we do vote, we'll have to decide who will have the right to vote; whether the votes would be public; and what options the ballot will have; and agree on a voting system <https://xkcd.com/1844/>. > Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides. > Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's > still time. > > I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a > curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View, > if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole > heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us > in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas. At > least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion > on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will > never actually read. > Exactly. The proposed patch doesn't affect generated machine code in any way; it only affects source code and debug symbols (= it only affects developers of zsh itself). The arguments have nothing to do with, say, the C execution model or forward compatibility and everything to do with people. [I'd link to a Wikipedia page with a list of arguments for and against changing master/slave terminologies, but I can't find one.] > Q&A > --- > > Q. Isn't it terrible people have such different ideas from me? > A. You might as well complain about night being different from day. > And actually I think it's good to have this discussion out in the > open rather than just closed groups of true believers. > > Q. But surely my position is so obviously right it has to win by default? > A. No, for the same reason. There's no "obvious" at this level. The > fact people come to such different conclusions means it requires > some consideration. A vote looks to me the right way of doing this. What wins by default is the status quo. Cheers, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 23:31 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 11:14 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 05:29:55 +0000: > > > 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. > > > > This appears to be where we're going. I'll do some research on this, but > > if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know. > > > > I don't think it's time to vote yet; see > <https://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#when-to-vote>. > > As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants > unhappy. Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on. I'll get the ball rolling: - Use whatever terms the documentation of the function we call uses for these. Whoever has an opinion on these terms — support, opposition, or anything else — is welcome to take it up with our dependencies' maintainers /as an individual/, but zsh /as a project/ will take no position on this issue, in order to facilitate collaboration between people who disagree on this issue. I mentioned this upthread, but (deliberately) not phrased it as a proposal at that time. To be clear, the proposal isn't to practise a Bystander Effect-esque "let someone else be the first to do something" behaviour. The proposal is to name the actual parameters after the formal parameters. Disagreements about what to name formal parameters in zsh.git will remain this list's buck. This is similar to the difference between a ring of N anonymous processors and a ring of N anonymous processors of which one is the leader. - Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option. (That means generating zpty.c from zpty.c.ac.) The option's name, its possible values, and the behaviour when the option isn't passed will have to be decided upon. Dnaiel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 23:31 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Peter Stephenson On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 05:48:01 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > - Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option. (That means > generating zpty.c from zpty.c.ac.) The option's name, its possible > values, and the behaviour when the option isn't passed will have to be > decided upon. Me honestly feels that would be one of the worst possible outcomes, as autocrap usage is rampant enough already and there simply no technical reason to optionally change the names (apart from funky compat issues that might arise when doing so). Me's against the change, but if we make it, we should make it unconditionally, not as a configure option, IMO. > Dnaiel Fnord. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 11:14 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 2 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-04 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang > On 04/10/2022 06:29 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on. That's a noble enterprise; however, with extreme opinions around --- by no means exclusively and I don't think typical --- we're going to have to come to some consensus on what consensus is. > Use whatever terms the documentation of the function we call uses for these. ... > Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option. I'm not really sure what these mean in practice. The best we've got so far seems to be to use Aix terminology, which is therefore at least semi-standard in some context and kind of blessed by IBM at some possible remove, "controller", "worker". Are you suggesting there might be some sort of partial consensus around something like that? If not, what? pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 11:14 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 2022-10-08 18:34 ` zeurkous 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Martijn Dekker @ 2022-10-08 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Op 04-10-22 om 07:29 schreef Daniel Shahaf: > As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants > unhappy. Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on. Since there is no consensus or precedent, I propose changing "slave" to "minion" and keeping "master", which is the less problematic of the two (e.g., as far as I know, no one is objecting to the default master branch on millions of git repos, or to the master recordings of music productions). This would minimise potential confusion while replacing the emotive, historically charged word by a reference to Despicable Me, which would inject some much needed light-heartedness into this debate. -- || modernish -- harness the shell || https://github.com/modernish/modernish || || KornShell lives! || https://github.com/ksh93/ksh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker @ 2022-10-08 18:34 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martijn Dekker, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 20:14:27 +0200, Martijn Dekker <martijn@inlv.org> wrote: > Op 04-10-22 om 07:29 schreef Daniel Shahaf: >> As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants >> unhappy. Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on. > > Since there is no consensus or precedent, I propose changing "slave" to > "minion" and keeping "master", which is the less problematic of the two > (e.g., as far as I know, no one is objecting to the default master > branch on millions of git repos, or to the master recordings of music > productions). How about "mook"? Yet, not necessarily opposed. Is this a compromise we can all live w/: replace "slave" but not "master"...? > This would minimise potential confusion while replacing the emotive, > historically charged word Until "minion" becomes an emotive, historically charged word, too. (Not to shoot it down, but there is that risk...) > by a reference to Despicable Me, which would > inject some much needed light-heartedness into this debate. Light-headedness more like :S (But that's off-topic...) --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-28 16:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2022-10-03 15:45 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 2 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Wesley @ 2022-10-03 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper" > and "lower"? > > 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? The change is essentially a refactor and should pass all the tests.. I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the outside world. All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue. Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc. Those are my 2 cents on this topic. Cheers, Wesley -- Wesley Schwengle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley @ 2022-10-03 15:45 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wesley, zsh-workers On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 15:27:49 +0000, Wesley <opndev@protonmail.com> wrote: > All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it > doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick > in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it > fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue. > Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc. > > Those are my 2 cents on this topic. To me, those "2 cents" appear to be the crucial point. Me can't escape the distinct impression that the folks over at IBM are trying to make their foolish policy into our (and others') problem. Me doesn't think we should suffer that gladly. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2022-10-03 15:45 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wesley; +Cc: zsh-workers Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000: > > > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major > > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper" > > and "lower"? > > > > 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. > 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. On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some people to participate in the community. On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well. However, these considerations are largely not specific to zsh, so I expect we could save ourselves a lot of time by finding a good write-up of the pros and cons of such terminology changes. Speaking of write-ups, I wonder if producingoss would accept patches adding discussion of such terminology changes. Cheers, Daniel > I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason > to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how > the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism > around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with > their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no > impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the > outside world. > > All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it > doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick > in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it > fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue. > Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc. > > Those are my 2 cents on this topic. > > Cheers, > Wesley > > -- > Wesley Schwengle > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-05 0:00 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 23:46 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wesley; +Cc: zsh-workers Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 07:05:20 +0000: > Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000: > > > > > > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > > > > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major > > > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper" > > > and "lower"? > > > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some > people to participate in the community. > > On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well. > However, these considerations are largely not specific to zsh, so I > expect we could save ourselves a lot of time by finding a good write-up > of the pros and cons of such terminology changes. Perhaps http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html? It's not specific to Naming Things, but it does touch on the question of how to interpret what other people say. In terms of jcb's thesis, the two positions on master/slave terminology seem to be "tactlessness is a strict liability faux pas; if Bob opines Alice spoke tactlessly, she should speak differently" and "Alice wasn't being intentionally racist/speciesist/*, and Bob should follow Postel's Law". If I wrote the last paragraph well, I mispresented /both/ positions equally badly :P Daniel > Speaking of write-ups, I wonder if producingoss would accept patches > adding discussion of such terminology changes. > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > > I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason > > to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how > > the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism > > around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with > > their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no > > impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the > > outside world. > > > > All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it > > doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick > > in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it > > fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue. > > Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc. > > > > Those are my 2 cents on this topic. > > > > Cheers, > > Wesley > > > > -- > > Wesley Schwengle > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-05 0:00 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:28:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > In terms of jcb's thesis, the two positions on master/slave terminology > seem to be "tactlessness is a strict liability faux pas; if Bob opines > Alice spoke tactlessly, she should speak differently" and "Alice wasn't > being intentionally racist/speciesist/*, and Bob should follow Postel's > Law". > > If I wrote the last paragraph well, I mispresented /both/ positions > equally badly :P [disclaimer: didn't read "jcb's thesis"] The real problem with an "it causes offense, so it must be wrong" attitude is conflicting norms, an inherent property of the very "cultural diversity" that companies like IBM claim to persue. In simpler terms: it's very easy to say something that constitutes an insult in $CULTURE[0], while constituting lavish praise in $CULTURE[1]. (The words "not bad" spring to mind.) We can never get it right; or, rather: we can never please everybody, no matter what terminology we use, *someone* will be offended. That's why it's important that keep technical terminology technical. Unless we're willing to outright make up words that no-one will be able to intuitively learn or understand. That would be quite a regression, wouldn't it? --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04 23:46 ` zeurkous 2022-10-05 0:28 ` FU: " zeurkous 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:05:20 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some > people to participate in the community. > > On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well. It's already having social costs. Look at the upheaval, on this very list, that we're ourselves participants of. In all, me suspects that the change, should we make it, will have the following effects-- 0) Continuing churn, both in the code and on the mailing lists; 1) The folks at IBM relievedly ticking boxes on forms submitted to management; 2) No increase -attributable to the change- in contributions; 3) An increase in certain people's level of disgust; and, finally: 3) The folks at IBM (and quite possibly others), having taken note that we gave in to political pressure once, sooner or later try to make us do so again, quite possibly on an even less sensical subject. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* FU: RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 23:46 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-05 0:28 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-05 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 23:46:34 +0000 (UTC), zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org wrote: > 3) An increase in certain people's level of disgust; > and, finally: > 3) The folks at IBM (and quite possibly others), having taken note > that we gave in to political pressure once, sooner or later try to > make us do so again, quite possibly on an even less sensical > subject. Of course, the latter should've been 4). Silly me. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 23:46 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:06 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson 2 siblings, 2 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: Wesley, zsh-workers On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000: > > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: > On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some > people to participate in the community. I have debated this point ad nauseam. It's not good enough to say this change *might* benefit some hypothetical people: these people have to be identified. A lawyer cannot go to court on behalf of some hypothetical plaintiff: somebody has to say "this affects me". This whole "master" debate boils down to this: not **one** person has claimed they find the term personally offensive. All the people against the term are proposing the change on behalf of hypothetical people, not themselves. In other words: they are being offended by proxy. Do we have a single black person raising their hand and saying "I find the term 'master' personally offensive"? -- Felipe Contreras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08 10:06 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Wesley, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 02:54:04 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we have a single black person raising their hand and saying "I find > the term 'master' personally offensive"? Or any other person. Enslavement in general has not been limited to the dark-skinned. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:06 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 10:59 ` zeurkous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Wesley, zsh-workers On 10/8/22, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: >> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000: >> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: > >> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some >> people to participate in the community. > > I have debated this point ad nauseam. You're certainly good at this part, maybe you should try debating by making good points instead of trying to make your opponents sick. > It's not good enough to say this change *might* benefit some hypothetical people[.] The cost is 0, the gain is 0 or greater. Just do it, and someone might be happier, nobody will be less happy. -- Mikael Magnusson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 10:59 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson; +Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Wesley, zsh-workers On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:46:19 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/8/22, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> >> wrote: >>> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000: >>> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote: >> >>> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some >>> people to participate in the community. >> >> I have debated this point ad nauseam. > > You're certainly good at this part, maybe you should try debating by > making good points instead of trying to make your opponents sick. In this case, you're describing your own behaviour more than you describe Felipe's. But you're probably oblivious to that. >> It's not good enough to say this change *might* benefit some hypothetical people[.] > > The cost is 0, the gain is 0 or greater. Just do it, and someone might > be happier, nobody will be less happy. It seems like you're unable to appreciate other people's arguments. Shame. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-29 8:31 ` Axel Beckert 5 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers Hi, On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:54:46PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the > change feel comfortable saying so publicly. Full Ack. Actually I see no reason to change _non-surfacing_ variables at all. Kind regards, Axel -- PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5 /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/ Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org X https://axel.beckert.ch/ / \ I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 8:44 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-09-28 20:01 ` Eric Cook 2022-09-29 8:05 ` Lawrence Velázquez 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Eric Cook @ 2022-09-28 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers On 9/27/22 04:44, Peter Stephenson wrote: > >> On 27/09/2022 05:22 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote: >>> >>> Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" >>> AIX uses "controller" and "worker" >> >> Well, that's no fun. It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt. >> On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about >> confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused. > > My only comment is that if we pick something unique and do the job > properly this time, then any further update to fit in with standards > is a 30 second automatic replacement. So I don't think it's worth > agonising over. > >> In this particular context I'd probably choose something like >> superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what >> that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO. They sound like words chosen >> for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to >> actually read. > > So e.g. zsuperior and zinferior would give us that ability (but you may > well be right superior and inferior are good enough --- replacing > master and slave didn't hit any clashes). > > pws > Indifference to the change in general 1) wasn't aware of the their existence until this thread. which did seem weird, like some automated search happened to find them. 2) not even zpty's documentation in zshmodules(1) refers to the existing terms. 3) as pointed out by Lawrence, the terms aren't even consistency used among operating systems so the feigned confusion of these internal variables already exists. 4) It's not similar to changing the default branch in zsh's vcs repo or changing listmaster@zsh.org, faqmaster@zsh.org in any way. if the change happens within a week it will be forgotten again, if even noticed. zpty isn't commonly used from what i can tell, i imagine people looking at its source code are even fewer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-28 20:01 ` Eric Cook @ 2022-09-29 8:05 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-29 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 4:01 PM, Eric Cook wrote: > 2) not even zpty's documentation in zshmodules(1) refers to the existing terms. I thought so too, but it turns out there is a single instance. I'm actually surprised there aren't more. > 4) It's not similar to changing the default branch in zsh's vcs repo or > changing listmaster@zsh.org, faqmaster@zsh.org in any way. if the > change happens > within a week it will be forgotten again, if even noticed. Yup. As far as I can tell -- and as Chen Xiao Ling noted in their original message -- nothing we've been discussing is externally visible (other than the aforementioned bit of documentation). > zpty isn't commonly used from what i can tell, i imagine people > looking at its source code > are even fewer. If cosmic rays were to spontaneously apply Peter's patch, it would take literally years for anyone to notice. https://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/master/log/?path=/Src/Modules/zpty.c -- vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-09-27 4:22 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-01 4:40 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-10-03 15:24 ` Peter Stephenson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-10-01 4:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers, Bart Schaefer; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 11:15 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: >> but at the present time the Linux documentation for pty(7), >> openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in question. (I haven't >> checked other platforms.) > > FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD do as well. > > Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" (https://illumos.org/man/4D/pty). > > AIX uses "controller" and "worker" > (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file). MacOS 12.6 uses "primary" and "replica". Solaris 11.4 splits the difference with "controller" and "slave", which strikes me as a lateral move at best. A for effort, I suppose. (No URLs, unfortunately, as I checked live systems.) -- vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-01 4:40 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-10-03 15:24 ` Peter Stephenson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang > On 01/10/2022 05:40 Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 11:15 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > AIX uses "controller" and "worker" > > (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file). I realise this is a week old now, but in the light of Bart's points, using AIX terminology would be poetic justice, and it's also satisfyingly similar to faculty / student (which, though amusing, would be way too mystifying). pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated @ 2022-10-05 3:02 Wesley 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 1 reply; 74+ messages in thread From: Wesley @ 2022-10-05 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-05 3:02 Wesley @ 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 74+ messages in thread From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-05 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wesley; +Cc: zsh-workers, Daniel Shahaf On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 03:02:37 +0000, Wesley <opndev@protonmail.com> wrote: > On 10/4/22 03:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > That is a thing, the linux man page are still using master and slave (as > stated in 50669). As a data point: so does OpenBSD. > @Sunny (OP) > How is IBM treating the Linux manual page(s), either via RHEL/SUSE or > LinuxOne? An interesting question. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 74+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-08 20:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 74+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-09-19 6:52 The request of words matter updated Xiao Ling XL Chen 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-09-27 4:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-27 8:44 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-27 20:54 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-09-27 21:15 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-27 21:22 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 12:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:33 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-27 21:32 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-09-28 6:17 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 6:30 ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-28 12:57 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:23 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:35 ` Axel Beckert 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-09-28 12:16 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-09-28 13:05 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:49 ` Axel Beckert 2022-09-29 4:08 ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir 2022-09-29 10:48 ` De Zeurkous 2022-09-29 12:11 ` FU: " zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-30 4:29 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-30 5:14 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 8:41 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:12 ` zeurkous [not found] ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> 2022-10-08 10:48 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 11:06 ` zeurkous [not found] ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> 2022-10-08 11:20 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 11:59 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 16:48 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 16:54 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 17:55 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:09 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-08 18:24 ` Clinton Bunch 2022-10-08 18:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 18:25 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 18:11 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 19:58 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-10-08 20:17 ` zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:52 ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:08 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-09-28 16:42 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-03 23:24 ` Eric Cook 2022-10-04 0:45 ` Wesley 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 23:31 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 11:14 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 2022-10-08 18:34 ` zeurkous 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2022-10-03 15:45 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 7:05 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 7:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-05 0:00 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 23:46 ` zeurkous 2022-10-05 0:28 ` FU: " zeurkous 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:06 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 10:59 ` zeurkous 2022-09-29 8:31 ` Axel Beckert 2022-09-28 20:01 ` Eric Cook 2022-09-29 8:05 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-10-01 4:40 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2022-10-03 15:24 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-05 3:02 Wesley 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).