linux-kernel - RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:55:42 +0000
From:   "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
CC:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...clm>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > >> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
> > >>
> > >> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
> > >
> > > I think it depends on the context.  I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> > > the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term.  In other words,
> > > yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> > > what the effect will be.  With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> > > model of what the code is going to do.
> >
> > That matches what I was about to say:
> > Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
> > It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.
> 
> After doing two days worth of git bisect, good/bad is hardcoded in my head :-p

Maybe I have the same bias, because good/bad there doesn't bother me at all. ;-)
Here is some 'motivated reasoning' on my part...

In the git case, the good/bad terms describe the result status of the test, not the action that git
is going to take based on that status.  It's pretty clear from context that a 'good'
result will cause that commit and other commits to be added to the 'good' set.  I think what
git actually does in constructing the sets is a bit too magical to describe with a  simple
verb.

As an aside I just looked up 'git-bisect' documentation, and found it has support
for changing the terms used ('git bisect terms ..') so you can use words like 'fast/slow'
or 'fixed/broken'.  That's something I didn't know about. :-)
 -- Tim