Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals

From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>, enh <enh@google.com>,
	Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>,
	Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:06:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <88273c2f-ce21-db54-688d-5bebd4a81ecd@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b3b4cf95-5eaa-0b4e-34cc-1a855e7148b6@gmail.com>

On 7/29/20 6:39 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> As per some discussion on libc-alpha [1], many of us are interested in
> finding a replacement for the problemantic master-slave terminology
> used in the description of pseudoterminals.
> 
> Elliot Hughes (enh@) suggested a replacement based on an idea from 
> an analogous change in the golang libraries, and I've taken a shot 
> at implementing that idea in a branch [2] of man-pages. The affected
> pages are:
> 
>  man2/ioctl_tty.2    | 23 +++++++++++--------
>  man2/poll.2         |  3 ++-
>  man3/getpt.3        |  2 +-
>  man3/grantpt.3      | 17 +++++++-------
>  man3/openpty.3      | 35 ++++++++++++++++------------
>  man3/posix_openpt.3 | 10 ++++----
>  man3/ptsname.3      | 10 ++++----
>  man3/ttyname.3      |  2 +-
>  man3/unlockpt.3     | 11 +++++----
>  man4/pts.4          | 26 ++++++++++++---------
>  man7/pty.7          | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  11 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> 
> Eventually, I think we should take this discussion also to the 
> mailing list, and also see if we can raise this within the POSIX 
> committee. But let's see if we can fist off find some terminology
> that seems agreeable.
> 
> I've added the full patch below. I am myself still reflecting on 
> the change. At times, the language feels a little clunky, but overall
> I don't hate the result. I welcome comments from all, and especially
> I'd be interested in feedback from Elliot and from Zack, who was 
> planning to work on this issue in the glibc documentation.

Overall I agree with Elliott that the changes are positive and make the
pages clearer. In some case I find the verbosity slightly longer than
I would want for reading in English. Since I have an EE background I also
find multiplexer more natural, but I got lost down the "agent noun from
a verb" rabbit hole and I agree with either position.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.