Discussion:
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
(too old to reply)
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 19:27:09 UTC
Permalink
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Jarkko Sakkinen (15):
MIPS: replace **** with a hug
Documentation: replace **** with a hug
drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
m68k: replace **** with a hug
parisc: replace **** with a hug
cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
ide: replace **** with a hug
media: replace **** with a hug
mtd: replace **** with a hug
net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
scsi: replace **** with a hug
inotify: replace **** with a hug
irq: replace **** with a hug
lib: replace **** with a hug
net: replace **** with a hug

Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h | 2 +-
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c | 24 +++++++++----------
arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c | 2 +-
arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c | 2 +-
.../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
.../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
drivers/ide/cmd640.c | 2 +-
drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c | 8 ++++---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c | 4 ++--
drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h | 2 +-
fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c | 2 +-
kernel/irq/timings.c | 2 +-
lib/vsprintf.c | 2 +-
net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
--
2.19.1
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 19:27:18 UTC
Permalink
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <***@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
index b0d44f9214b0..bdf68678fccc 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
@@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ int register_mtd_blktrans(struct mtd_blktrans_ops *tr)
int ret;

/* Register the notifier if/when the first device type is
- registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from fucking
+ registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from hugging
us over. */
if (!blktrans_notifier.list.next)
register_mtd_user(&blktrans_notifier);
--
2.19.1
Boris Brezillon
2018-11-30 19:39:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:27:18 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
index b0d44f9214b0..bdf68678fccc 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
@@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ int register_mtd_blktrans(struct mtd_blktrans_ops *tr)
int ret;
/* Register the notifier if/when the first device type is
- registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from fucking
+ registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from hugging
us over. */
Please rephrase the comment instead of this replacement.
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
if (!blktrans_notifier.list.next)
register_mtd_user(&blktrans_notifier);
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 20:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boris Brezillon
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:27:18 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
index b0d44f9214b0..bdf68678fccc 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
@@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ int register_mtd_blktrans(struct mtd_blktrans_ops *tr)
int ret;
/* Register the notifier if/when the first device type is
- registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from fucking
+ registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from hugging
us over. */
Please rephrase the comment instead of this replacement.
Will do in the next version of this patch set!

/Jarkko
Richard Weinberger
2018-12-01 10:31:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:28 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
Please explain in detail why the CoC forces us to avoid this word.
Your patch seems more like self-censorship.
--
Thanks,
//richard
Kees Cook
2018-11-30 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
"hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
follow true Doggo meme style).

"This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
"Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
etc... "hug" is odd.

Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?

-Kees
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
MIPS: replace **** with a hug
Documentation: replace **** with a hug
drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
m68k: replace **** with a hug
parisc: replace **** with a hug
cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
ide: replace **** with a hug
media: replace **** with a hug
mtd: replace **** with a hug
net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
scsi: replace **** with a hug
inotify: replace **** with a hug
irq: replace **** with a hug
lib: replace **** with a hug
net: replace **** with a hug
Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h | 2 +-
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c | 24 +++++++++----------
arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c | 2 +-
arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c | 2 +-
.../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
.../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
drivers/ide/cmd640.c | 2 +-
drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c | 8 ++++---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c | 4 ++--
drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h | 2 +-
fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c | 2 +-
kernel/irq/timings.c | 2 +-
lib/vsprintf.c | 2 +-
net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
--
2.19.1
--
Kees Cook
Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-30 19:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...

Thanks,
Davidlohr
Jens Axboe
2018-11-30 20:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
--
Jens Axboe
Michael Schmitz
2018-11-30 20:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jens Axboe
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
Irony? Parody?

That's what crossed my mind, to be brutally honest. Group hug, anyone?

For the VME vectors case: no need to hug, just don't mess with them.

Cheers,

Michael

(Waiting for Adrian's ticket machines to swoop down and take me out now
... in 24 hours ...)
David Miller
2018-11-30 20:35:07 UTC
Permalink
From: Jens Axboe <***@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
Post by Jens Axboe
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
And even worse it is censorship.
David Miller
2018-11-30 20:42:28 UTC
Permalink
From: Abuse <***@2.abuse.bgcomp.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000
I assume I will now be barred.
Perhaps, but not because you said fuck. It would be because you're
intentionally creating a disturbance on the list and making it more
difficult for developers to get their work done and intentionally
creating a distraction and a hostile environment for the discussion at
hand.

That would not be censorship.

There is a big difference.
Steven Rostedt
2018-11-30 20:43:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
Post by Jens Axboe
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
And even worse it is censorship.
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
Hug
I assume I will now be barred.
-- Steve
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
Post by Jens Axboe
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
And even worse it is censorship.
It is not close to a cencorship, especially when I used RFC tag, which
essentially says that I'm not saying "please take this", right?

Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then? I read it through
on my plane trip with an eye glass.

Is cursing OK?

/Jarkko
David Miller
2018-11-30 21:47:03 UTC
Permalink
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <***@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:42:33 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then?
Regardless of what I think, as others have showen the CoC explicitly
does not apply to existing code.
Jens Axboe
2018-11-30 21:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:42:33 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then?
Regardless of what I think, as others have showen the CoC explicitly
does not apply to existing code.
And with that, can we please put an end to this thread (and patchset)?
--
Jens Axboe
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-12-01 04:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
Post by Jens Axboe
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Agree, this is insanity.
And even worse it is censorship.
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
I assume I will now be barred.
Thank you for taking the opportunity to practice free speech in the
always so welcoming and inclusive on-line world :-) Now I'll just have
to find my notebook and write this prose down so that I'll never forget
it. Thanks again.

/Jarkko
David Miller
2018-11-30 20:34:15 UTC
Permalink
From: Davidlohr Bueso <***@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:56:52 -0800
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
I hope this is some kind of joke.
Whether or not it is a joke, it is censorship.

And because of that I have no intention to apply any patches like this
to any code I am in charge of.
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 20:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)

I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things that I
did was to read the new CoC properly.

This a direct quote from the CoC:

"Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
advances or requests for sexual favors."

Doesn't this fall into this category?

Your argument is not that great because you could say that from any LKML
discussion. If you don't like hugging, please propose something else :-)

/Jarkko
James Bottomley
2018-11-30 21:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by
reading technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)
I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things
that I did was to read the new CoC properly.
"Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
advances or requests for sexual favors."
Doesn't this fall into this category?
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Your argument is not that great because you could say that from any
LKML discussion. If you don't like hugging, please propose something
else
:-)
The interpretation document also says this:

ontributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate
language. Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct
will not be addressed now as a violation.

So that definitely means there should be no hunting down of existing
comments in kernel code.

James
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.

/Jarkko
David Miller
2018-11-30 21:48:08 UTC
Permalink
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <***@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.
It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.

That part seems very explicit to me.
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.
It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.
That part seems very explicit to me.
Well, now that I re-read it, it was this part to be exact:

"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

How this should be interpreted?

I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to
always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate.

/Jarkko
James Bottomley
2018-11-30 22:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by David Miller
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.
It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.
That part seems very explicit to me.
"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
How this should be interpreted?
Firstly, this is *only* about contributions going forward. The
interpretation document says we don't have to look back into the
repository and we definitely can't remove something from git that's
already been committed.

As a Maintainer, if you feel bad language is inappropriate for your
subsystem then you say so and reject with that reason patches that come
in containing it (suggesting alternative rewordings). However, your
determination about what is or isn't acceptable in your subsystem isn't
binding on other maintainers, who may have different standards ... this
is identical to what we do with coding, like your insistence on one
line per variable or other subsystem's insistence on reverse christmas
tree for includes ...

James
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to
always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate.
/Jarkko
James Bottomley
2018-11-30 21:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most
heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered
acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker
as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did
through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced
from it.
OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as
bad language isn't explicitly banned. The thing which differentiates
simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language",
which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target.

So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the
hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a
CoC violation. If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of
the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is. Even non-native
English speakers should be able to determine target and context,
because that's the essence of meaning.

James
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 22:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Bottomley
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by James Bottomley
No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most
heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered
acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker
as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did
through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced
from it.
OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as
bad language isn't explicitly banned. The thing which differentiates
simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language",
which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target.
So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the
hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a
CoC violation. If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of
the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is. Even non-native
English speakers should be able to determine target and context,
because that's the essence of meaning.
I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the part
that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so had to
revisit to find the exact paragraph):

"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.

As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.

I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.

/Jarkko
Jonathan Corbet
2018-11-30 22:14:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.

Thanks,

jon
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 22:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Corbet
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.
Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.

Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
single common sense code of conduct?

/Jarkko
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 22:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jonathan Corbet
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.
Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
single common sense code of conduct?
I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually
should do what value does the former bring?

Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot
of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time.

/Jarkko
James Bottomley
2018-11-30 22:30:45 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jonathan Corbet
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-
interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things
should be interpreted here.
Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged
to single common sense code of conduct?
The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC
reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been
the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months
... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think
we don't want to reopen that can of worms.

James
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 22:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Bottomley
[...]
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jonathan Corbet
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-
interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things
should be interpreted here.
Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged
to single common sense code of conduct?
The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC
reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been
the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months
... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think
we don't want to reopen that can of worms.
Got you... Well I now read the 2nd amendment now through, and yeah, kind
of way I work/function anyway.

Thank you for the patience...

/Jarkko
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 23:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Got you... Well I now read the 2nd amendment now through, and yeah, kind
of way I work/function anyway.
Ugh, looked up the word from dictionary for something that makes
additions to some guidelines because did not know the english word.
Not meant as a political reference of any kind. Just don't know
any better English word.

/Jarkko
Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-12-01 08:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jon,
Post by Jonathan Corbet
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.
Indeed:

| Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
| Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
| addressed now as a violation.

However:

| Inappropriate language can be seen as a
| bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested
| parties submit patches to that effect.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ***@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Eric Curtin
2018-12-07 13:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,

I initially thought these patches were a joke. But I guess they are
not. I suppose 2018 is the year everything became offensive.

Could we avoid the s/fuck/hug/g though? I have nothing against
re-wording this stuff to remove the curse word, but it should at least
make sense.

What's going to happen is someone is a newbie is going to see a comment
like "We found an mark in the idr at the right wd, but it's not the
mark we were told to remove. eparis seriously hugged up somewhere",
probably google the term as they are unfamiliar with it, find out it's
an alias for "fucked" and if they are sensitive get offended anyway.
Post by Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Jon,
Post by Jonathan Corbet
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.
| Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
| Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
| addressed now as a violation.
| Inappropriate language can be seen as a
| bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested
| parties submit patches to that effect.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
James Bottomley
2018-11-30 22:26:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:12 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the
part that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so
I replied in to the other thread.
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.
As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows
what the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even
for existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
That's wrong in the light of the interpretation document, yes.
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a
mistake by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it
*actually* says?
You can't read it in isolation, you need to read it along with the
interpretation document. The latter was created precisely because
there was a lot of push back on interpretation problems and ambiguities
with the original CoC and it specifically covers this case (and a lot
of others).

James
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
/Jarkko
Steven Rostedt
2018-11-30 21:02:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Davidlohr Bueso
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)
I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things that I
did was to read the new CoC properly.
"Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
advances or requests for sexual favors."
Doesn't this fall into this category?
It has also been discussed that existing code (and past conduct) will
not be covered under the CoC. It's about new code and conduct moving
forward.

-- Steve
Jonathan Corbet
2018-11-30 21:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
"Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
advances or requests for sexual favors."
Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
addressed now as a violation.
So existing code is explicitly not a CoC violation and need not be
treated as such. That said, improvements to the comments are always
welcome, as long as they are actually improvements.

Thanks,

jon
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2018-11-30 20:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kees Cook
Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out
when a piece of text contains the word "fuck".

I still don't understand why people think that the word "fuck" is what
would keep certain groups from contributing to the Linux kernel. In all
seriousness, it doesn't.

Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - ***@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - ***@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out
when a piece of text contains the word "fuck".
I still don't understand why people think that the word "fuck" is what
would keep certain groups from contributing to the Linux kernel. In all
seriousness, it doesn't.
Are you making a claim that your personal experience, and maybe your
mates, is the objective truth, or am I misunderstanding something?

/Jarkko
Matthias Brugger
2018-11-30 20:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
"hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
follow true Doggo meme style).
"This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
"Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
etc... "hug" is odd.
Like John I don't think that the word "fuck" is something we have to ban from
the source code, but I don't care too much. Anyway, please don't change it to
something like heck as it might be difficult for non-english speaker to understand.

Regards,
Matthias
Post by Kees Cook
Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
-Kees
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
MIPS: replace **** with a hug
Documentation: replace **** with a hug
drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
m68k: replace **** with a hug
parisc: replace **** with a hug
cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
ide: replace **** with a hug
media: replace **** with a hug
mtd: replace **** with a hug
net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
scsi: replace **** with a hug
inotify: replace **** with a hug
irq: replace **** with a hug
lib: replace **** with a hug
net: replace **** with a hug
Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h | 2 +-
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c | 24 +++++++++----------
arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c | 2 +-
arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c | 2 +-
.../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
.../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
drivers/ide/cmd640.c | 2 +-
drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c | 8 ++++---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c | 4 ++--
drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h | 2 +-
fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c | 2 +-
kernel/irq/timings.c | 2 +-
lib/vsprintf.c | 2 +-
net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
--
2.19.1
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthias Brugger
Like John I don't think that the word "fuck" is something we have to ban from
the source code, but I don't care too much. Anyway, please don't change it to
something like heck as it might be difficult for non-english speaker to understand.
I make context sensitive better thought updates based on the feedback
that Kees gave. I used RFC tag for a reason.

/Jarkko
Chris Mason
2018-11-30 20:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
"hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
follow true Doggo meme style).
"This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
"Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
etc... "hug" is odd.
Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
I think the bar for changing the documentation/comments should be
improvement in the clarity or approachability of whatever is being
changed.

This patch set is kind of like Linus sitting at kernel summit with a
sign that says "Free Hugs". Kind of confusing, and really unlikely to
make anyone involved happier about working on the kernel.

Jarkko, making things clearer and more approachable is absolutely worth
the time if you're interested, but I think it'll mean larger and more
individualized changes to these files.

-chris
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Mason
I think the bar for changing the documentation/comments should be
improvement in the clarity or approachability of whatever is being
changed.
This patch set is kind of like Linus sitting at kernel summit with a
sign that says "Free Hugs". Kind of confusing, and really unlikely to
make anyone involved happier about working on the kernel.
Jarkko, making things clearer and more approachable is absolutely worth
the time if you're interested, but I think it'll mean larger and more
individualized changes to these files.
Fully 110% agree.

/Jarkko
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-11-30 21:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kees Cook
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
"hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
follow true Doggo meme style).
"This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
"Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
etc... "hug" is odd.
Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
I'm happy to refine this (thus the RFC tag)! And depending on the
culture, hugging could fall in the harrasment category. Actually, when I
think about it, in Finland this kind of poking of ones personal bubble
would be such :-)

I'll refine the patch set with more context sensitive replacements,
perhaps removing the comment altogether in some places. Thank you for
the feedback!

/Jarkko
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...