* Re: The request of words matter updated @ 2022-10-05 3:02 Wesley 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-05 3:02 The request of words matter updated Wesley @ 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* 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; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-09-19 6:52 Xiao Ling XL Chen @ 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer 2022-09-27 3:15 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 6:14 ` Felipe Contreras ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 12:08 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 2022-09-28 16:34 ` Peter Stephenson 4 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 2022-09-28 12:52 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 4 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-03 15:27 ` Wesley 2 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-03 14:25 ` Peter Stephenson 2022-10-03 14:43 ` zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: The request of words matter updated 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-08 18:14 ` Martijn Dekker 2022-10-08 18:34 ` zeurkous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ 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; 19+ 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] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-08 19:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-10-05 3:02 The request of words matter updated Wesley 2022-10-05 3:18 ` zeurkous -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2022-09-19 6:52 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 2022-09-28 12:47 ` zeurkous, zeurkous 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 2022-09-28 12:52 ` 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 2022-10-04 5:29 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 5:48 ` Daniel Shahaf 2022-10-04 23:31 ` zeurkous 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 2022-10-08 7:54 ` Felipe Contreras 2022-10-08 10:06 ` zeurkous 2022-10-08 10:46 ` Mikael Magnusson 2022-10-08 10:59 ` 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).