From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904A51F54E for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 06:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="KH/kIYQD"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230024AbiGOGbB (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:31:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41220 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231747AbiGOGai (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:30:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD0CD23BC2 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 23:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF2F1A50F4; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:30:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Nd2Rab1SiTd6GvaqywHJBX9Cxri+NfM+gGcIO+ PgKdk=; b=KH/kIYQDAU2EO2tjPlJJXGJPjWlEYXjdtcvtP3rBLjJJE6ak1lpDDe L5fZ4S3QppjFPecUtI2H3zC1qCvyjzYiAQJXzkyGtZd9okMEHLC6yATmb9LBiz5W LAAckFGU9reUyRqFG/AFtp9PJVuKsxbOoAPQTNmixZqO/ZoX/ijyw= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C521A50F3; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:30:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.92.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EA111A50F2; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:30:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, Jeff King , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Remove use of "whitelist" References: Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 23:30:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:38:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 99EC32B6-0407-11ED-AB93-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > The word "whitelist" has cultural implications that make its use > non-inclusive. > > A previous version of this series recommended the replacement of > "allowlist", but that term is still new and not accepted by some common > dictionaries. > > Instead, this version avoids the use of "whitelist" by rewording the > sentences that use it. In many cases, this improves readability since the > term is used suddenly without other context (and in some cases, is not > necessary at all). > > There is one case where "whitelist" is replaced with "allow_list" but that > is because we are operating on a string list parsed from the > GIT_ALLOW_PROTOCOL environment variable. > > Thanks, -Stolee Maybe I am biased, but for all the changes in these patches, I find the updated text far easier to understand than a mere replacing of the words s/white/allow/, even if I pretend that allowlist is considered by everybody a proper part of English vocabulary. After all, I think most of the places did not have to say "whitelist" in the first place. Will queue. Thanks.