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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 1CD17C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA98220773 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DA98220773 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2559326FCD; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YzMvniHzcF9d; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7491120360; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5DDC07FF; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4A3C016F; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF6E885D7; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wYsrHyrHCa89; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D893F885D0; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oasis.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0B5C2088E; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:41:51 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: <20200707114151.2d7b0fc1@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> <20200707064921.GA9411@linux.ibm.com> <20200707093727.22aa39e2@oasis.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Bird, Tim" , LKML , "tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Ksummit-discuss" On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700 Randy Dunlap 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 -- Steve _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss