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-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC90B1F990 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CC4386F82E; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:25:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 99CC4386F82E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1596561921; bh=RXauyaNpJWaHWHUFoCmJEOgEHnWy8BHkyRckLun7378=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=ZIEXo1xUeYajbl7bnPXhVOCOgkxvCAtIa2gK9aZln719BHEDjkgh/TsxoBCBq+SzU tYjRN1INYBKdUugTLW49CDCzxZREUrXE1vRf75xZt4DV3G7uZ62/oIjy97ukCWM/kj X6If4BlWUsZwlLiHi7KdB9CE0G7vS1d6Facksxzc= Received: from mail-lj1-x244.google.com (mail-lj1-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::244]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B471386F82E for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:25:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 8B471386F82E Received: by mail-lj1-x244.google.com with SMTP id h19so44486931ljg.13 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 10:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RXauyaNpJWaHWHUFoCmJEOgEHnWy8BHkyRckLun7378=; b=Ft7zm86JfAP7ewuNDMX9MVl3r/GGwwyXCOBb2/gRyaGdBuyz/pTDhr6L7Qa07aSthH DcnuWNr04pPRTRQ1vG6pnoIqMQJnL/4a2GoAkUSG7QP0BPZGggWEHNcIt2AnWcsAcRor zbDvmfZoQmytW3M4yvTlmilnBJN5kXN9Oi/7EaCTmo10IvK7DOOK/vbc6K6EzRTj9GJ/ 5i4TDh5a1pIDu+TMs/CF4KHaBZS6Bb0ita2hOf76N+O70jfOP8rKRYrqVBmUwOpaMMLt XfQdKm7ah4ww+2e0ZyM7w2irmR2THVYRXCvbQsVr5u9SE21fw99sBf0CawMjUUJl/Z6n 2WPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532q4V/+6EDQtjcMv4fZ4bVE+jYhMWj/PaU8HGKfc5pRkQDhDp6Q 3TGcsMjD49OAuAcIQGgATEgc6ce+gE/1M+LN7zOcpA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwC0ySOJJPqlRyJdn37WyyeeRdp8xWy9btQxYVtSBnHFw9HIk87PImZ4eVPHdT6uZIWpmmUFvUVuJuoj9xeUq8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6804:: with SMTP id c4mr3166135lja.216.1596561916899; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 10:25:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <88273c2f-ce21-db54-688d-5bebd4a81ecd@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:25:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: enh via Libc-alpha Reply-To: enh Cc: Florian Weimer , linux-man , Linux API , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , Joseph Myers Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:48 AM Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > Hi Elliot, > > On 7/30/20 10:35 PM, enh wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:38 AM Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> > >> On 7/30/20 5:16 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >>> I know what you mean. One reason for that verbosity is the need to > >>> clearly distinguish "pseudoterminal device/end" from "pseudoterminal > >>> device pair". It's hard to avoid being wordy there. > >> > >> The perfect is the enemy of the good. My feeling is that as others > >> write this text in emails or discussions, we'll eventually all settle > >> on some other short form we find agreeable and then later we can adjust > >> the man pages to use that. > > > > based on my own brief experience, i'm expecting that _code_ will > > settle on pty and tty. but if you're reading the man pages to > > understand the concepts -- which are inherently quite confusing -- i > > think spelling things out in longhand might remain useful in that > > context. > > > >> Until then taking the lead to change this > >> language is the correct way forward. > > > > yeah, definitely. > > > > i'd prefer for michael to go first -- since the bionic documentation > > is basically just a link to man7.org, and even without that he's the > > canonical source -- but i'm happy to go first and submit my change > > first if it helps us make progress :-) > > I'd prefer to take this a little slowly. I don't plan to merge the > changes just yet. I'm interested to get a bit more feedback first, > including from Zack. (I'm guessing Zack is on holiday or so, which > is why we've not heard from him.) Also, if we have rough consensus > on this change, I would like to raise it with the POSIX folk; it > would of course be great if there was a corresponding change in the > standard, so that we all (all UNIX) have a common set of reference > terms. the good news is that it came up at this week's austin group meeting... the bad news is that (afaik) none of us were there. i had been planning to suggest we try to join next week anyway, to avoid having this stall again. > Cheers, > > Michael > > > -- > Michael Kerrisk > Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ > Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/