Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: 5I2KL3FnQtXkM7r7E08Z+J3eklasVDpSVVpoq5VlJkXPNG7QtaT3FXLj12hVc5BMgsEJOmWXMA
 9iXFTVSS0FIg==
From:   SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
CC:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <apw@canonical.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>, <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        <sj38.park@gmail.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kristen.c.accardi@intel.com>, <mishi@linux.com>,
        <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Recommend denylist/allowlist instead of blacklist/whitelist
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:30:35 +0200
Message-ID: <20200611083035.23008-1-sjpark@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <38ac91ab-ced3-8a4f-b825-4503fdcddeb8@suse.cz> (raw)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:16:09 +0200 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

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