News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Linux 5.8 Formally Adds the Inclusive Terminology Guidelines. Parent comment

Re:Linux 5.8 Formally Adds the Inclusive Terminology Guidelines by viraptor on Saturday July 11, 2020 @08:02AM (#23801460)
Pretty much agree with all that. There are two places where I do fight against it is where someone references external established standards/documents. For example if you're using SPI, the devices are master and slave. Until SPIv2 changes the naming, software using it should match it. Same for changing public API without leaving backwards compatibility names.

The second one is if the name is already massively spread and a known brand which just can't be "renamed". Like in Rubocop case - you can't rewrite every mention on the internet. If you're going to kill the brand... it's just not worth it.

Otherwise, either do a quick change, or ask "if you care enough, please submit a PR" and just be done with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux 5.8 Formally Adds the Inclusive Terminology Guidelines by scrollaway on Saturday July 11, 2020 @08:16AM (#23801587)
What's the Rubocop case?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux 5.8 Formally Adds the Inclusive Terminology Guidelines by viraptor on Saturday July 11, 2020 @08:20AM (#23801611)
https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091

Proposal for removing "cop". TL;DR: Rejected by author because the name is so established as a brand it would take massive effort to change.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux 5.8 Formally Adds the Inclusive Terminology Guidelines by mercer on Saturday July 11, 2020 @12:27PM (#23803328)
Yeah, that one seems reasonable to me too. I am somewhat cop-averse (at least in the US), but the justification for keeping the name are reasonable.
[ Parent | on HN ]