Re: GOAWAY -> GTFO

 

>> 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.

I expressed this in the
GitHub comments about the issue, echoing it here as well because this
mailing list has a wider audience.

Use of GTFO is fine. Anyone arguing
that because foreign speakers may not understand potential slang is
being naïve or needs to get out more. I've managed development teams in
Moscow, Novosibirsk, Kiev, the San Francisco Bay Area, London, and
Japan. The use of slang or jargon derived from English in technical
documentation, implementations, code, or configuration has never
deterred anybody from applying the appropriate knowledge. GOAWAY vs.
GTFO -- if I were to implement a server or a client handler for this,
I'd go for GTFO as the most meaningful (and perhaps get a secret
chuckle, sure).

So -- can we keep this instead? Think of HTTP status
code 418 IMATEAPOT (which is Russian slang for "I don't know what I'm
doing"). Not many web servers or app servers implement it, granted, but
it's part of the official spec. And I've known teams in the US and
Europe who've used 418 as a placeholder for an app RESTful handler that
is only mocked up/yet to be implemented.

Just my $0,02.

Cheers!

E

--

http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu