Hi Lester, wt., 16 cze 2020 o 15:55 Lester Caine <les...@lsces.uk> napisał(a):
> On 16/06/2020 13:14, Michał Brzuchalski wrote: > > I'd like to start a discussion period for my RFC which proposes to change > > the use of "blacklist" in Opcache configuration with better > > self-descriptive terminology. > > Since there will be a higher level change to all these terms - in all > likelihood - trying to push yet another term that does not match the > current discussions elsewhere seems somewhat premature. The NEXT RFC > will be to bring this in line with the 'new' industrial standard, so is > there any point jumping the gun before the international debate has > finished? "blocklist", "banlist", and others all have appropriate > application but like "excludelist", they all imply a narrower usage area > while "blacklist" is accepted generally across all applications. > > What ever alternative to "blacklist" is adopted elsewhere is going to > cause confusion and adding to that confusion with a different > 'translation' just makes the situation worse? > Isn't that the more narrow term is used it's easier to understand? We can easily vote on the right name. I chose the "exclude list" cause the INI setting which changes name in this proposal is a glob path to filenames. These files are then parsed as a list of glob paths for later file exclusion on opcache run. Another term in my mind is "ignore list" which then suggest a list of files ignored by opcache run. Regarding the "blocklist" I have to admit that it was my first thought but after thinking IMO it's inappropriate. There is nothing in the opcache what blocks files from being cached and optimised, they by themselves are not trying to be cached, cause the flow is from opcache extension. For me to whom English is not a native language first association is with blocking service access to the clients which interacts with the service and try to get access to it. That's why I think it's inappropriate here and I've changed it in the original patch. The same goes for the "banlist" for me my first association is with the client who had access to the service but due to some policy reasons (like fo reg. destructive intentions or overuse), the client lost access rights and get's banned with assignnment to the "banlist". Therefore IMO we should choose a new name wisely so it can be self-descriptive. What I can propose is update of RFC with a note regarding the second vote for the right name. I'd like to put there an "exclude_list" and "ignore_list", but if my reasoning about not debating on the "banlist" and/or "blocklist" is not enough then please let me know then I can add those two also. Cheers, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
