On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:23:52 +0000 "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:10:05 +0000 > > "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader > >>>>> is still a member of the team and will participate in the work. > >>>>> > >>>>> Leader / worker? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I personally doubt such changes are needed at all. > >>>> Code churn will be massive for both DPDK itself and related user > >>>> projects. > >>>> With no real gain in return, from my perspective. > >>>> Konstantin > >>>> > >>> > >>> Your concern is valid but the issue does need to be addressed. > >>> If now when? This is as a good a time as any to do it. > >>> > >>> Increasing diversity and inclusion is an overarching goal of many > >>> organizations > >>> include my employer(Microsoft), the parent organization of DPDK(LF) > >>> and my values. > >>> > >>> Following values is more important than minor replacement of text in API. > >>> > >> > >> I feel like Konstantin is correct here. > >> > >> If we were using these terms for humans or groups of humans, then I would > >> agree they should be changed. We need to take into account the context of > >> the reference to these words. I agree some words should never be used in > >> any context, but these terms are very reasonable in the context of DPDK > >> and networking. > > > > Have to disagree, the words matter. This has been discussed many times. > > Please look at the footnotes from the Gnome post > > > > > > [0] - > > <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/Language/NonSexist/vuw.non-sexist-language-guidelines.txt>, > > <https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/933011085594066944> > > > > [1] - <https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692> > > [2] - <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> > > > > [3] - <https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/rust-buildbot/issues/2>, > > <https://github.com/rust-community/foss-events-planner/issues/58> > > > > [4] - <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248> > > [5] - <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/geary/issues/324> > > You chopped off my last sentence in your reply. > > "If everyone wants to accept the code churn (and it will effect a large > number of applications, plus back porting will be more difficult IMO), then > we can do it." > > So to be clear, I am not opposed to making this change, but wanted to point > out the technical impacts of this change to DPDK as a whole. Thanks, my editing was not intended to be a way to stifling your response. How many applications try to support multiple DPDK major versions at once?
