Re: GOAWAY -> GTFO

It is offensive and should not be used. Intent does not solve the issue. 

Phil

> On Jan 28, 2014, at 15:02, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 23:09:08 UTC