[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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(-)

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <***@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
index 9cc10e438b3d..55a0060881ea 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ init_ram_restrict(struct nvbios_init *init)
{
/* This appears to be the behaviour of the VBIOS parser, and *is*
* important to cache the NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT0 on later chipsets to
- * avoid fucking up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
+ * avoid hugging up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
* on every INIT_RAM_RESTRICT_ZM_GROUP opcode.
*
* Preserving the non-caching behaviour on earlier chipsets just
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
index 3737bd27f74e..ee364c71cc2e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_SUBINTR 0x00000800
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_WATCHDOG 0x00000002
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR 0x0014
-#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* fuck i hate envyas */ -1
+#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* hug i hate envyas */ -1
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_ROUTE 0x001c
#define NV_PPWR_TIMER_LOW 0x002c
#define NV_PPWR_WATCHDOG_TIME 0x0034

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:30 PM Jarkko Sakkinen

Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
index 9cc10e438b3d..55a0060881ea 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ init_ram_restrict(struct nvbios_init *init)
{
/* This appears to be the behaviour of the VBIOS parser, and *is*
* important to cache the NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT0 on later chipsets to
- * avoid fucking up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
+ * avoid hugging up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
* on every INIT_RAM_RESTRICT_ZM_GROUP opcode.
*
* Preserving the non-caching behaviour on earlier chipsets just
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
index 3737bd27f74e..ee364c71cc2e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_SUBINTR 0x00000800
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_WATCHDOG 0x00000002
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR 0x0014
-#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* fuck i hate envyas */ -1
+#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* hug i hate envyas */ -1

Can you also capitalize the "i" please?

Yeah, maybe I just change it as "/* I hate envyas */"?

/Jarkko

[Diego Viola]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:26 PM Jarkko Sakkinen

Post by Jarkko Sakkinen

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:30 PM Jarkko Sakkinen

Post by Jarkko Sakkinen
In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
index 9cc10e438b3d..55a0060881ea 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ init_ram_restrict(struct nvbios_init *init)
{
/* This appears to be the behaviour of the VBIOS parser, and *is*
* important to cache the NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT0 on later chipsets to
- * avoid fucking up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
+ * avoid hugging up the memory controller (somehow) by reading it
* on every INIT_RAM_RESTRICT_ZM_GROUP opcode.
*
* Preserving the non-caching behaviour on earlier chipsets just
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
index 3737bd27f74e..ee364c71cc2e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_SUBINTR 0x00000800
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_SET_WATCHDOG 0x00000002
#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR 0x0014
-#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* fuck i hate envyas */ -1
+#define NV_PPWR_INTR_EN_CLR_MASK /* hug i hate envyas */ -1

Can you also capitalize the "i" please?

Yeah, maybe I just change it as "/* I hate envyas */"?
/Jarkko

Yes, that looks better.

Thanks,
Diego

[Michel Hermier]

Hi,

I'm just a random user, and I don't really care about the CoC, but I do
care about the code quality. And with that I think a good comment SHOULD be
polite and anonymous. So why not change first one with "messing" or
"corrupting", and remove the second one since it does not being any
information but the author pov.

My 2 cents, trying to avoid to feed the CoC troll.

Cheers

[David Miller]

From: Davidlohr Bueso <***@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:56:52 -0800

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.

[David Miller]

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]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700

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]

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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800

Post by Jarkko Sakkinen

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]

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

[James Bottomley]

Post by Jarkko Sakkinen

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Eric Curtin]

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]

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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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]

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700

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]

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.

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700

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