Am 25.04.15 um 18:07 schrieb Alan Barrett: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, rod...@netbsd.org wrote: >> I'm responding to the recent posts ITT, because it seems there's some >> misunderstanding: > > I had no idea what ITT meant, until I looked it up. (ITT = "in this > thread", apparently). > >> 1) What has been committed is no more "offensive" than the existing >> material in wtf and fortune. Please, review fortune's data files if >> any doubts exist; >> >> 2) wtf and fortune have existed in source since $TIME without any uproar; >> >> 3) There aren't any rules documenting appending entries to either; >> >> 4) We don't tend to make up rules as we go along committing; > > We have a rule or at least a convention that things that are likely to > be controversial should be discussed first. If you don't realise that > something is controversial, and commit without discussion, then the > appropriate response is to engage in discussion as soon as you learn > that the issue was controversial. Continuing without discussion is not > appropriate. > > I think that NetBSD's acronyms file should be for acronyms that ordinary > people are likely to encounter in ordinary situations; not for acronyms > used in some small subculture.
As if NetBSD is not some small subculture,,, > > --apb (Alan Barrett)
