I appreciate your reply very much! And sure it's not wise to rename things every time someone asks for it, even when it's a lot of people. But same applies to the original renaming commit, doesnt it?
Saying the change has been made and now it's too late defies the very concept of version control. Reminder: we are using git. It can never be "too late" :)
This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!) was welcome to give their opinion.
Whatever happened after the trolling began doesn't matter. At this point it's impossible to tell concern from trolling.
Given that the current wording reflects consensus in the core team, you can assume that it won't be changed.
This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!) was welcome to give their opinion.
That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It is clearly better than the first. The question is, why the first commit was accepted.
Whatever happened after the trolling began doesn't matter. At this point it's impossible to tell concern from trolling.Well, I'm claiming that the first commit that proposed the leader/follower pair was trolling.
Given that the current wording reflects consensus in the core team, you can assume that it won't be changed.Given that the current wording is less clear than "master/slave" and many community member are against this change, I think that the issue is worth discussing a bit more.
(Here is a comment confirming the assumption: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2694#discussion_r12865261)
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/aaee8850-e135-44fd-8821-d0c3bd8fe423%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!) was welcome to give their opinion.
That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It is clearly better than the first. The question is, why the first commit was accepted.
Given that the current wording reflects consensus in the core team, you can assume that it won't be changed.Given that the current wording is less clear than "master/slave" and many community member are against this change, I think that the issue is worth discussing a bit more.
(Here is a comment confirming the assumption: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2694#discussion_r12865261)
It seems to be, there are enough reasonable people leaving comments like this one: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2720#issuecomment-44296843
It seems to be, there are enough reasonable people leaving comments like this one: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2720#issuecomment-44296843
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:47:02 PM UTC+7, Daniele Procida wrote:On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira <poo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!)
>> was welcome to give their opinion.
>>
>
>That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of
>whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It is clearly better than
>the first. The question is, why the first commit was accepted.
A human being saw the patch, made the judgement in good faith that it should be accepted into core, and merged it.
I don't really see why you say that "why" is the question - it doesn't seem a very important one.
Daniele
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/cc3e6931-4709-4dbd-9508-6a20e3636bc0%40googlegroups.com.
To be honest, looking at the PR the "many community members" probably reduce to a number countable with all of my fingers.
I think it makes more sense to count reasonable arguments of both sides, not the people who thumb up in the comments (by the way, those who thumb up are mostly Americans, isn't that discrimination?)
If using the word "slave" is immediately associated with racism, it's a sign that we might have too many Americans in the topic, because for me, "slave" is not equal to "black slave". Maybe it's because we have too many bears and too few black folks in my country, but we did have (practically) slavery, too.
I also have a problem with the phrase "inclusive language". Who exactly was "included" by this change? I highly doubt that there was a slave who started using django after the change. It seems to me, it's the American historical guilt playing a huge role here.
It's an old misconception, it seems that if we change the words, we'll change the reality. By banning the word "slave", you cannot cancel the fact that for many years, black people in the US were treated worse than animals. I don't think that an attempt to forget that fact by aggressively labeling words as "racist" is "inclusive" or "positive".
I actually think that remembering bad things that are now history should encourage people to be a little nicer to each other at the moment.
We had slavery, and now we don't. It has nothing to do with databases :)
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:54:16 PM UTC+7, Daniele Procida wrote:On Tue, May 27, 2014, Andromeda Yelton <andromed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Which is a little beside the point as the process for merging PRs is not,
>in fact, democracy. But is also fantastic, because I've spent the last
>week reading TRAC and hanging out here and talking to lots of people trying
>to figure out if Django will be a safe place for me to contribute. And
>when I see that large a fraction of commenters come down on the side of
>inclusivity, I feel like "django developer" is a hat I can put on.
If we get a single more person contributing to Django as a result, I would consider this whole episode as being entirely worth it.
Not that I think it's a sustainable strategy in the long term, of course.
Daniele
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4da37237-adb4-49bd-b710-280dda186aea%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6b9c68a2-01e2-433f-a442-16d4bd8ba51e%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140527215632.1c093394%40fiodor.
It was very clearly stated in the other email thread about this, by the no longer offensively titled BDFL :P, that the rename will not be reverted. It's nearly impossible to get a change in to core when there is a single core dev opposed to it and there have been many core devs who are -1 on reverting.
The battle has been lost. The only potential outcome from continuing
to press your argument is to anger core devs and flood inboxes of many
people who would never have seen those doc pages if it were not for
these controversial commits.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAGdCwBscO2xY3TjCNs8J6V__fmhqTWzm_XXOcVb9C3Q4QwSaUw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAK8PqJEgSJAUgT0FbTbxh9%3D%3DZG0gzjZ2qaBSWdGARYiaPoJpFw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMGywB6AV4e3cH28RDUTsvUdF3MS%3D%3DGgbE3SPG_LJeYmZgbmQw%40mail.gmail.com.
As some of you may have notice, a hot discussion is happening in the comments of this pull request: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
Essentially, this pull request suggests that all occurences of master/slave be replaced with leader/follower. While this is clearly insane, a less jaw-dropping, but still weird change was made in commit https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a02352ae1
Many users in comments to the original pull request agreed that primary/replica is not a good word choice, is vague and misleading. Current django docs compensate for the confusion by referring to "master/slave" in parentheses after mentioning "primary/replica". Of course, this change is nothing more than cosmetical, but it still carries more downsides than upsides.
Master/slave is immediately obvious for the experienced users, and easily googleable for the newbies.
I reverted the change and sent a pull request https://github.com/django/django/pull/2720. In the corresponding ticket, I was told to "wait 6 months" and then resubmit the ticket. (https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22707), and the pull request was closed immediately with an advice to start a discussion on mailing list. So that's what I'm doing here :)
I sum up my personal point of view in this comment: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692#issuecomment-44265422
Of course, it'll be hard for the django maintainers to admit their mistake and revert the change. It's always hard to admit mistakes, but it's better than leaving it how it is.
That is one great suggestion. +1 and as long as nobody -1s it, we're good to go!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/d01d6237-eb4d-4841-8f6c-646d69c96291%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6690ffb5-74ff-478d-a820-89f93e3f93bd%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6690ffb5-74ff-478d-a820-89f93e3f93bd%40googlegroups.com.