Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:41:51 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.linuxfoundation.lists.ksummit-discuss,dev.linux.lists.ksummit,dev.linux.lists.tech-board-discuss,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was thinking good-list / bad-list. > >> > >> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately... > > > > I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described > > the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words, > > yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context > > what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental > > model of what the code is going to do. > > That matches what I was about to say: > Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about. > It should be more descriptive, like allow/block. After doing two days worth of git bisect, good/bad is hardcoded in my head :-p -- Steve _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss