Re: GOAWAY -> GTFO

Reposting my github comment here.

FWIW, and for lack of anyone else talking about a pro of GTFO. When at the
working group, a lot of thick topics were discussed at length and everyone
there seemed 100% dedicated to having the best spec there is. GTFO, as a
word, is harmless to implementation for reasons including the opcode is the
same. IOTW, the binary representation is the same. There's no technical
reason why it matters.

I am one of the implementors of this specification. When the change was
suggested towards GTFO, I felt *motivated* I mean the audience of this spec
are implementors, some of which may be uptight about crassness others less
so.

If you look at github (ps this is on github) there's ample evidence that
implementors are motivated by words that aren't boring. For example,
there's a popular package manager called "fpm". Guess what that stands for?

I'm not saying go back and re-word everything to be fresh, rather have
patience with those who are literally implementing this, in open source,
and are ok with the choice. Expect many more implementors to arise from
github, a place relatively unburdened by crass-ness or location.





On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>wrote:

> FWIW, when GTFO was suggested last week at the working group, all people
> present had an opportunity to dissent and I heard not a single dissent
> voiced!
>
> That said, I wouldn't conflate above PR/commit as a "popular move" as who
> knows.. GOAWAY might actually lose a popular vote vs GTFO!
>
> That said, silencing the argument is likely a popular move, so maybe the
> description still fits.
>
> sigh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>wrote:
>
>> I've made a pull request to revert the change since the popular opinion
>> on this thread has been against the rename and I haven't heard any
>> arguments defending the choice of GTFO.
>>
>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/366
>>
>>
>