Master/Slave +0
The discusion of this terminology is only for trollers and non technical
professionals.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Tim Graham wrote:
> This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of
> Trac tickets that could use attention. Thank-you!
>
>
> On T
Ah yes, such a brilliant way to engage legitimate concerns from community.
*slow caps*
I'm out, it's been a fun 5 years guys, take care.
Cal
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Tim Graham wrote:
> This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of
> Trac tickets that coul
This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of
Trac tickets that could use attention. Thank-you!
On Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Andre Terra wrote:
>
> That is one great suggestion. +1 and as long as nobody -1s it, we're good
> to go!
> On Aug 12, 2014
That is one great suggestion. +1 and as long as nobody -1s it, we're good
to go!
On Aug 12, 2014 11:17 AM, "Robert Grant" wrote:
> I'd really, really like it if we were to stop saying a UI element is
> "disabled" and say "differently abled".
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 14:14:43 UTC+2
Ok Jerry Lewis,
Everybody got the idea, now nove on.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
I'd really, really like it if we were to stop saying a UI element is
"disabled" and say "differently abled".
Thanks
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 14:14:43 UTC+2, Meira wrote:
>
> As some of you may have notice, a hot discussion is happening in the
> comments of this pull request: https://github.com/
On 05/27/2014 10:20 PM, Michael Manfre wrote:
> It was very clearly stated in the other email thread about this, by
> the no longer offensively titled BDFL :P, that the rename will not be
> reverted. It's nearly impossible to get a change in to core when there
> is a single core dev opposed to it a
It was very clearly stated in the other email thread about this, by the no
longer offensively titled BDFL :P, that the rename will not be reverted.
It's nearly impossible to get a change in to core when there is a single
core dev opposed to it and there have been many core devs who are -1 on
revert
On Tue, 27 May 2014 05:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Kai wrote:
> What is so bad about removing terms like master/slave that are
> related to or even originate from so much suffering and injustice and
> replacing it with neutral terms? Primary/Replica is used in many DB
> systems too.
Bad thing is that the
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira wrote:
>Black people refer to themselves "a person of color", and then even shorten
>it: PoC. Isn't that a ridiculous acronym? If I were black, I would be
>deadly offended if someone dared to call me "a person of color"!
You're not black though, and if some black pe
I think a lot of recent changes in the language are harmful. Many common,
short, clear, and concise words and phrases are being replaces with long,
vague, sterile versions. Not only in the IT field, but everywhere.
Black people refer to themselves "a person of color", and then even shorten
it: P
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
> To be honest, looking at the PR the "many community members" probably
> reduce to a number countable with all of my fingers.
>
Of the first 150 distinct commenters, 120 support the change (including
everyone who is recognizably a person
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Meira wrote:
> It seems to be, there are enough reasonable people leaving comments like
> this one: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2720#issuecomment-44296843
>
We'll just get the databases to change their terminology before we change
ours!
Of course, the
It seems to be, there are enough reasonable people leaving comments like
this one: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2720#issuecomment-44296843
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:47:02 PM UTC+7, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira > wrote:
>
> >> This second commit was discussed
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira wrote:
>> This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!)
>> was welcome to give their opinion.
>>
>
>That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of
>whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It is clearly
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 5:38:23 PM UTC+2, Meira wrote:
>
> This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!)
>> was welcome to give their opinion.
>>
>
> That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of
> whether or not we're accepting the seco
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Meira wrote:
> This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!)
>> was welcome to give their opinion.
>>
>
> That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of
> whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It
>
> This second commit was discussed in a Trac ticket and everyone (even you!)
> was welcome to give their opinion.
>
That's all nice and good, but why is the discussion taking the course of
whether or not we're accepting the second commit? It is clearly better than
the first. The question is
In the interest of giving the full story to those who're genuinely worried that
core devs don't give a fuck about the community — community being defined as
the people who discovered this change on django-updates, not on 4chan or Hacker
News...
> Le 27 mai 2014 à 16:24, Meira a écrit :
>
> I
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:24:51 PM UTC+2, Meira wrote:
> I appreciate your reply very much! And sure it's not wise to rename things
> every time someone asks for it, even when it's a lot of people. But same
> applies to the original renaming commit, doesnt it?
>
Yes and no, we trust our comm
I appreciate your reply very much! And sure it's not wise to rename things
every time someone asks for it, even when it's a lot of people. But same
applies to the original renaming commit, doesnt it?
I would suggest that leaving names the way they have been since a long time
is the best option.
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira wrote:
>Sorry, I accidentally sent a private reply :) I'll try to repeat it here
>for others.
I have replied, privately, but I wanted to add publicly:
>The community is trying to protect the django project from the attack of
>people who seek no good for django. Ple
Sorry, I accidentally sent a private reply :) I'll try to repeat it here
for others.
Those silly pictures are the community's emotional reply to an issue that
they care about. I don't think calling the contributors "silly" is exactly
politically correct, too, since we are on that level now :)
What is so bad about removing terms like master/slave that are related to
or even originate from so much suffering and injustice and replacing it
with neutral terms? Primary/Replica is used in many DB systems too.
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:14:43 PM UTC+2, Meira wrote:
>
> As some of you may hav
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Meira wrote:
>As some of you may have notice, a hot discussion is happening in the
>comments of this pull request: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
If by "hot discussion" you mean silly pictures and noisy accusations...
There is a discussion to be had about this
It took 7 minutes and 23 seconds to merge this troll PR without any
discussion and now Meira is suggested to wait 6 months? But what can happen?
вторник, 27 мая 2014 г., 16:14:43 UTC+4 пользователь Meira написал:
>
> As some of you may have notice, a hot discussion is happening in the
> comments
As some of you may have notice, a hot discussion is happening in the
comments of this pull request: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
Essentially, this pull request suggests that all occurences of master/slave
be replaced with leader/follower. While this is clearly insane, a less
jaw-dr
27 matches
Mail list logo
