Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110632
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABdc3WrM1bmef-GNZpoYgTj-RE4aCpC3SHsUP2=UgJ2zmDDOKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <37381398-3330-e5c3-4ae8-e668ca545194@lsces.uk> <CABdc3WqbvNcc_j_+_wrYm6_SMawY+OFoDAxK-FQa+RvRwpyO8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABdc3WqbvNcc_j_+_wrYm6_SMawY+OFoDAxK-FQa+RvRwpyO8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:22:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKyXdeuZjz=oxjocGCYY6MOREhGuga-=UG6=DkA0==HOWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Marcin_Brzuchalski?= <michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com>
Cc: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.uk>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2535705a84862d4"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] Change terminology to ExcludeList
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000f2535705a84862d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:46 AM Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski <
michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Lester,
>
> wt., 16 cze 2020 o 15:55 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.uk> napisa=C5=82(a):
>
> > On 16/06/2020 13:14, Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski wrote:
> > > I'd like to start a discussion period for my RFC which proposes to
> change
> > > the use of "blacklist" in Opcache configuration with better
> > > self-descriptive terminology.
> >
> > Since there will be a higher level change to all these terms - in all
> > likelihood - trying to push yet another term that does not match the
> > current discussions elsewhere seems somewhat premature. The NEXT RFC
> > will be to bring this in line with the 'new' industrial standard, so is
> > there any point jumping the gun before the international debate has
> > finished? "blocklist", "banlist", and others all have appropriate
> > application but like "excludelist", they all imply a narrower usage are=
a
> > while "blacklist" is accepted generally across all applications.
> >
> > What ever alternative to "blacklist" is adopted elsewhere is going to
> > cause confusion and adding to that confusion with a different
> > 'translation' just makes the situation worse?
> >
>
> Isn't that the more narrow term is used it's easier to understand?
> We can easily vote on the right name.
>
> I chose the "exclude list" cause the INI setting which changes name in th=
is
> proposal
> is a glob path to filenames.
>

  Please stop using the term "glob." As a person that is above what many
would consider an ideal weight, I've been called a "useless glob" on
multiple occasions. This term is harmful to me as a result.


> These files are then parsed as a list of glob paths for later file
> exclusion on opcache run.
> Another term in my mind is "ignore list" which then suggest a list of fil=
es
> ignored by opcache run.
>
>
When I grew up, I was often ignored by other people, causing me to be
lonely and depressed. The term "ignore list" triggers those same feelings,
so please avoid using this in the future.


> Regarding the "blocklist" I have to admit that it was my first thought bu=
t
> after thinking IMO it's inappropriate.
>

My father often called me an "ignorant blockhead" so the term "blocklist"
triggers negative emotions as well.


> There is nothing in the opcache what blocks files from being cached and
> optimised,
> they by themselves are not trying to be cached, cause the flow is from
> opcache extension.
>
> For me to whom English is not a native language first association is with
> blocking service access to the clients
> which interacts with the service and try to get access to it.
> That's why I think it's inappropriate here and I've changed it in the
> original patch.
>
> The same goes for the "banlist" for me my first association is with the
> client who had access to the service
> but due to some policy reasons (like fo reg. destructive intentions or
> overuse), the client lost access rights and
> get's banned with assignnment to the "banlist".
>
> Therefore IMO we should choose a new name wisely so it can be
> self-descriptive.
> What I can propose is update of RFC with a note regarding the second vote
> for the right name.
> I'd like to put there an "exclude_list" and "ignore_list", but if my
> reasoning about not debating
> on the "banlist" and/or "blocklist" is not enough then please let me know
> then I can add those two also.
>
> Cheers,
> Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski
>

None of the above are actually true (except for the fact that I'm
overweight). The point I'm trying to raise is that context matters, and
changing terms because some people refuse to understand the context is not
justified. Otherwise you open a pandora's box where you either have to
change everything that someone claims offends them, or, you have to pick
and choose which people or group are allowed to be offended and which are
not. If the term blacklist had racist origins, the discussion might be
different. However, it does not, just like glob does not have origin in
fat-shaming.

I have no problem changing these terms if they are changed industry wise
and the new terms are needed to keep up with industry standards. I might
not agree with why they were changed in other arenas, but, at the point new
terms become standard, the reason they became standard doesn't really
matter. So, as others have said, this and other discussions about renaming
terms because some might find them offensive is not something we should be
doing. Renaming terms in order to align with changes to industry standards,
while something we should do, is premature at this point as those standards
have yet to change.





--=20
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000f2535705a84862d4--