From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9EFC433E0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:31:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47132072F for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:31:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="Na5SwJoj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726708AbgFKIbC (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:31:02 -0400 Received: from smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com ([72.21.196.25]:44710 "EHLO smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726646AbgFKIbB (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:31:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1591864260; x=1623400260; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=gE4QUdZh10oJ1Y6AXqRaO1/QXy4fn8StEChlLqZbvW8=; b=Na5SwJoj2qJv2MTQa18fq5Ul4NR9cKLXTTSkr0S3mnl3a50XDmdzIrzt 6mXIetMBychn4PIkMPVA9kTcDEa5Rp2ixcKx/mkrtanRWbzNemxk77IfF 71lYAoEvrksPrJXbMD+2iwUAHEM7iRfmRuaLWWszygiOo6s8548pGCuQR Y=; IronPort-SDR: 5I2KL3FnQtXkM7r7E08Z+J3eklasVDpSVVpoq5VlJkXPNG7QtaT3FXLj12hVc5BMgsEJOmWXMA 9iXFTVSS0FIg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,499,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="35704540" Received: from iad12-co-svc-p1-lb1-vlan2.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-2a-6e2fc477.us-west-2.amazon.com) ([10.43.8.2]) by smtp-border-fw-out-2101.iad2.amazon.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2020 08:30:58 +0000 Received: from EX13MTAUEA002.ant.amazon.com (pdx4-ws-svc-p6-lb7-vlan2.pdx.amazon.com [10.170.41.162]) by email-inbound-relay-2a-6e2fc477.us-west-2.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A066CA07D4; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) by EX13MTAUEA002.ant.amazon.com (10.43.61.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:30:56 +0000 Received: from u886c93fd17d25d.ant.amazon.com (10.43.160.48) by EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:30:49 +0000 From: SeongJae Park To: Jiri Slaby CC: SeongJae Park , Joe Perches , , , SeongJae Park , , , , , , , 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> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <38ac91ab-ced3-8a4f-b825-4503fdcddeb8@suse.cz> (raw) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [10.43.160.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX13D21UWA004.ant.amazon.com (10.43.160.252) To EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:16:09 +0200 Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 11. 06. 20, 9:38, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:35:24 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 08:25 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > >>> From: SeongJae Park > >>> > >>> 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