From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Jun 20 20:19:35 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2857B333B0F; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:19:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (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 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49q6Tg0Htbz3WTL; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:19:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id F0FC81CC96; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:19:34 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Colin Percival Cc: Warner Losh , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r362444 - head/sbin/dump Message-ID: <20200620201934.GA8270@FreeBSD.org> References: <202006202006.05KK6EqK016498@repo.freebsd.org> <01000172d35c996f-523a3c65-2f6b-472e-ad04-070e2b22bfe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01000172d35c996f-523a3c65-2f6b-472e-ad04-070e2b22bfe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:19:35 -0000 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 08:12:40PM +0000, Colin Percival wrote: > Thanks for backing this out, Warner. I also appreciate it. > I'd like to change "slave" to "worker" here (which I think is a reasonably > neutral and entirely inoffensive term), and in the process perhaps make some > associated grammatical changes (since "enworker" is dubious at best). > > To avoid causing any further issues: If anyone objects to the word "worker" > please let me know in the next ~48 hours. I think there's enough people > reading svn-src-all that I can anticipate feedback now if anyone will care > deeply about that word. Please, just open a DR for that so all interested parties can participate and fine-tune particular grammar and language choices. Also, r362447 should be reverted on the same grounds as r362422. ./danfe