3 ms·

Remove some offensive/archaic terminology from OpenSSL

17 points by yarapavan 6y ago

yarapavan 6y ago
Context: The link to PR request mentioned in the email chain -> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089 https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089 The full email thread from openssl mailing list -> https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html
catalogia 6y ago
I don't really get why 'main' seems to be the goto replacement word. Surely 'trunk' is best, since it complements 'branch' analogy. Fossil calls it trunk and IIRC subversion does too, probably a few others as well. Is it because main and master both begin with the same letter?
- asveikau 6y ago
  That's for the branch name. A bunch of the places in the diff are for other uses of the word master. Like if you have any pair of items and one of them is primary.
- glofish 6y ago
  trunk would not be a good term since it is not a trunk, it is a branch. Some of the problems with the proposed alternatives (and this applies for the other terms as well: "blocklist", "parent") is that the words are overly specific and have a meaning that could be clearly misleading, like calling one of the branches "trunk". One of the reasons that white/black terms stuck is that they are not overly specific hence can be applied for diverse situations yet maintain the clarity of they mean. Perhaps it should be called "first" or if you feel fancy "origo" - as in the first branch created when you initialize a repository.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    First/origo makes more sense to me than 'main' following that logic. I've seen plenty of projects where the 'main'/'mainline'/'master' isn't actually where any development is done or any code deployed from. Other branches originate from them, but the focus of the developers is in other parts of the tree. That's also why I think 'trunk' is a good name. It describes the positional relationship that part of the tree has to other parts, without ascribing any organizational importance to it. I don't think 'first' is ideal though, since that has a temporal component and would be better applied to the root commit.
Tarq0n 6y ago
These initiatives appear to me like the ultimate form of bikeshedding. Making real change to society is extremely hard, so instead people focus on the superficial and immediately available.
- emerged 6y ago
  Real change isn't profitable, superficial signaling is. They are doing what companies do -- finding paths to increased profit (or in these sorts of cases, avoiding loss in profits caused by threat of mob).
- HeyZuess 6y ago
  I don't know, maybe I have lost touch with reality, but these things seem trivial at best. It's like a form of false martyrdom. It is easy to pick apart the small things, and be offended (or extremely empathetic).
Brian_K_White 6y ago
"You pilot one fighter and slave the other three to yours..." Gosh grandpa your sci-fi sure is an embarassing product of it's time huh?

17 points by yarapavan 6y ago

Context: The link to PR request mentioned in the email chain -> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089 https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089 The full email thread from openssl mailing list -> https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html

catalogia 6y ago

I don't really get why 'main' seems to be the goto replacement word. Surely 'trunk' is best, since it complements 'branch' analogy. Fossil calls it trunk and IIRC subversion does too, probably a few others as well. Is it because main and master both begin with the same letter?

asveikau 6y ago
That's for the branch name. A bunch of the places in the diff are for other uses of the word master. Like if you have any pair of items and one of them is primary.
glofish 6y ago
trunk would not be a good term since it is not a trunk, it is a branch. Some of the problems with the proposed alternatives (and this applies for the other terms as well: "blocklist", "parent") is that the words are overly specific and have a meaning that could be clearly misleading, like calling one of the branches "trunk". One of the reasons that white/black terms stuck is that they are not overly specific hence can be applied for diverse situations yet maintain the clarity of they mean. Perhaps it should be called "first" or if you feel fancy "origo" - as in the first branch created when you initialize a repository.
- catalogia 6y ago
  First/origo makes more sense to me than 'main' following that logic. I've seen plenty of projects where the 'main'/'mainline'/'master' isn't actually where any development is done or any code deployed from. Other branches originate from them, but the focus of the developers is in other parts of the tree. That's also why I think 'trunk' is a good name. It describes the positional relationship that part of the tree has to other parts, without ascribing any organizational importance to it. I don't think 'first' is ideal though, since that has a temporal component and would be better applied to the root commit.

Tarq0n 6y ago

These initiatives appear to me like the ultimate form of bikeshedding. Making real change to society is extremely hard, so instead people focus on the superficial and immediately available.

emerged 6y ago
Real change isn't profitable, superficial signaling is. They are doing what companies do -- finding paths to increased profit (or in these sorts of cases, avoiding loss in profits caused by threat of mob).
HeyZuess 6y ago
I don't know, maybe I have lost touch with reality, but these things seem trivial at best. It's like a form of false martyrdom. It is easy to pick apart the small things, and be offended (or extremely empathetic).

Brian_K_White 6y ago

"You pilot one fighter and slave the other three to yours..." Gosh grandpa your sci-fi sure is an embarassing product of it's time huh?