Re: GOAWAY -> GTFO

Some implementers are not familiar with English slangs; schools don't
teach this stuff. GTFO will be a hard-to-remember acronym to them.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 23:03:16 UTC