RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Adam Farley8
Hey All,

I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
it seems appropriate to remove them.

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217

I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.

Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
those.

Reviews and opinions welcome. :)

Best Regards

Adam Farley
IBM Runtimes

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Alan Bateman
On 11/12/2018 15:03, Adam Farley8 wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>
> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> those.
>
> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
"Where's that damn torpedo?" might be from Star Trek.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Adam Farley8
Alan Bateman <[hidden email]> wrote on 11/12/2018 15:32:31:

> From: Alan Bateman <[hidden email]>
> To: Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]>, core-libs-dev <core-libs-
> [hidden email]>
> Date: 11/12/2018 15:33
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words
>
> On 11/12/2018 15:03, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > Hey All,
> >
> > I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments,
and
> > it seems appropriate to remove them.
> >
> > Bug: INVALID URI REMOVED
>
u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8215217&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
>
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=qU1GS7jvxOg5rsMfdgT3_qee4ZirvY2cajsOhIza2y8&s=R4gzHBoqzCQdmJLCSmPyLfRrHH-5xtvUArpwaaXk2Ck&e=
> >
> > I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
> >
> > Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in
more
> > excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> > those.
> >
> > Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
> "Where's that damn torpedo?" might be from Star Trek.
>

Yep, Kirk said it.

Perhaps "d**n" or "darn" would better preserve the quote?

- Adam
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Volker Simonis
In reply to this post by Adam Farley8
Hi Adam,

in order to prevent me from using swear words, could you please upload
your webrev to cr.openjdk.java.net :)

As you may have realized webrevs are a collection of HTML files and it
makes no big sense to provide them as a zip file.

Thank you and best regards,
Volker
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:04 PM Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hey All,
>
> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>
> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> those.
>
> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Pavel Rappo
In reply to this post by Alan Bateman
Sweet! Learning English with the OpenJDK community.

You sir, probably, have a degree in public relations and/or marketing. This was
*the best* way to draw attention to those swear words. Had these words stayed
unexposed, no one would have been bothered by them. I guess...

On a serious note, I wouldn't change cave art just because we might find it
inappropriate, it's history now.

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 15:32, Alan Bateman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2018 15:03, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
>>
>> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
> "Where's that damn torpedo?" might be from Star Trek.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

jeff.dinkins
In reply to this post by Adam Farley8
!             // these icons are pretty crappy to use in Mac OS X since
              // they really are interactive but we have to return a static
              // icon for now.

->

!             // these icons are difficult to use in Mac OS X since
              // they really are interactive but we have to return a static
              // icon for now.


Crappy != Difficult, it changes the semantics of the comment.

“unfortunate” or maybe “a poor substitute” would be a better replacement.

-jeff


> On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>
> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> those.
>
> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

roger riggs
In reply to this post by Volker Simonis
Hi,

And the patch by itself is sufficient, inline or attached to the issue
or the email.
No need to carry around the whole webrev.
And it is very handy to have an quick link to cr.openjdk.java.net

$.02, Roger

On 12/11/2018 10:46 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> in order to prevent me from using swear words, could you please upload
> your webrev to cr.openjdk.java.net :)
>
> As you may have realized webrevs are a collection of HTML files and it
> makes no big sense to provide them as a zip file.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Volker
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:04 PM Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
>>
>> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Adam Farley
>> IBM Runtimes
>>
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Adam Farley8
In reply to this post by Volker Simonis
Sure thing:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/

Best Regards

Adam Farley
IBM Runtimes


Volker Simonis <[hidden email]> wrote on 11/12/2018 15:46:44:

> From: Volker Simonis <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Java Core Libs <[hidden email]>
> Date: 11/12/2018 15:47
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> in order to prevent me from using swear words, could you please upload
> your webrev to cr.openjdk.java.net :)
>
> As you may have realized webrevs are a collection of HTML files and it
> makes no big sense to provide them as a zip file.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Volker
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:04 PM Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> >
> > Hey All,
> >
> > I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments,
and
> > it seems appropriate to remove them.
> >
> > Bug: INVALID URI REMOVED
>
u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8215217&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
>
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=GfAb5QlDParO6DVrhdvPZTSafShnFACNF3JgqF-
> _RkM&s=Qscaf2tTpPcZKpIelJ6SrP0uRYSFoKaCNATns0FX7_Y&e=
> >
> > I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
> >
> > Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in
more

> > excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> > those.
> >
> > Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Adam Farley
> > IBM Runtimes
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
>

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

David Holmes
No issue with fixing F-bomb (though one comes from upstream sources I
think) and the Pitch typo, but seriously "damn" is not a swear word.

I have to suspect you ran a corporate word checker over the sources.

David
-----

damn
/dam/
verb
past participle: damned

     1.
     (in Christian belief) be condemned by God to suffer eternal
punishment in hell.
     "I treated her badly and I'll be damned to hell for it"
         be doomed to misfortune or failure.
         verb: damn; 3rd person present: damns; past tense: damned;
gerund or present participle: damning
         "the enterprise was damned"
     2.
     criticize strongly.
     "the book damns her husband"
     synonyms: condemn, censure, criticize, attack, denounce, deplore,
decry, revile, inveigh against; blame, chastise, castigate, berate,
upbraid, reprimand, rebuke, reprove, reprehend, take to task, find fault
with, give someone/something a bad press; deprecate, disparage;
informal: slam, hammer, lay into, cane, blast; informal: slate, slag
off, have a go at; archaic: slash, reprobate; rare: excoriate,
vituperate, arraign, objurgate, anathematize
     "we are certainly not going to damn a product just because it is
non-traditional"
     antonyms: acclaim, praise
         curse (someone or something).
         "she cleared her throat, damning it for its huskiness"
         synonyms: curse, put a curse on, put the evil eye on, execrate,
imprecate, hoodoo; More
         anathematize, excommunicate;
         hex;
         informal put a jinx on, jinx;
         rare accurse
         "if we did not believe in God, we would be damned"
         antonyms: bless

exclamation informal
exclamation: damn

     1.
     expressing anger or frustration.
     "Damn! I completely forgot!"

adjective informal
adjective: damn

     1.
     used for emphasis, especially to express anger or frustration.
     "turn that damn thing off!"

Phrases
—— be damned
used to express defiance or rejection of someone or something previously
mentioned. "glory be damned!"
damn all
nothing at all. "there's damn all you can do about it"
damn someone/thing with faint praise
praise someone or something so unenthusiastically as to imply
condemnation. "it was a wretched review, damning poor Lisa with faint
praise"
I'm damned if
used to express a strong negative. "I'm damned if I know"
not be worth a damn
have no value at all. "your evidence isn't worth a damn"
not give a damn
not care at all. "people who don't give a damn about the environment"
well I'll be damned
used to express surprise. "Well, I'll be damned! What brings you here?"
Origin

On 12/12/2018 2:45 am, Adam Farley8 wrote:

> Sure thing:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes
>
>
> Volker Simonis <[hidden email]> wrote on 11/12/2018 15:46:44:
>
>> From: Volker Simonis <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: Java Core Libs <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 11/12/2018 15:47
>> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words
>>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> in order to prevent me from using swear words, could you please upload
>> your webrev to cr.openjdk.java.net :)
>>
>> As you may have realized webrevs are a collection of HTML files and it
>> makes no big sense to provide them as a zip file.
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>> Volker
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:04 PM Adam Farley8 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments,
> and
>>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>>
>>> Bug: INVALID URI REMOVED
>>
> u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8215217&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
>> siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
>>
> CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=GfAb5QlDParO6DVrhdvPZTSafShnFACNF3JgqF-
>> _RkM&s=Qscaf2tTpPcZKpIelJ6SrP0uRYSFoKaCNATns0FX7_Y&e=
>>>
>>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>>
>>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in
> more
>>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>>> those.
>>>
>>> Reviews and opinions welcome. :)
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Adam Farley
>>> IBM Runtimes
>>>
>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
>>> 741598.
>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
>>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Aleksey Shipilev-4
On 12/11/18 10:44 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> No issue with fixing F-bomb (though one comes from upstream sources I think) and the Pitch typo,
> but seriously "damn" is not a swear word.
Exactly my comment as well.

Thanks,
-Aleksey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Adam Farley8
2018/12/11 7:03:57 -0800, [hidden email]:
> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217

(webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/)

> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>
> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> those.

It also would be good to discuss the instances that you’ve proposed
to change in your patch.

I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.

Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
strikes me as overkill.

What do other Committers think?

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Jonathan Gibbons

On 12/11/2018 01:52 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> 2018/12/11 7:03:57 -0800, [hidden email]:
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
> (webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/)
>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
> It also would be good to discuss the instances that you’ve proposed
> to change in your patch.
>
> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.
>
> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?
>
> - Mark

The f-bombs in this file are from an upstream library:

src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/jquery/jszip/dist/jszip.js

Are we committing to removing these words every time we update the library?

-- Jon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

David Holmes
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On 12/12/2018 7:52 am, [hidden email] wrote:

> 2018/12/11 7:03:57 -0800, [hidden email]:
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> (webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/)
>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
>
> It also would be good to discuss the instances that you’ve proposed
> to change in your patch.
>
> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.
>
> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?

I completely agree. I was surprised to see the F-word but then somewhat
relieved to see it came from external sources!

I'd also advocate, as a matter of technical style, not using emotive
commentary in the code, and avoiding colloquialisms. That should avoid
any future issues.

Cheers,
David
-----

> - Mark
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Joseph D. Darcy
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On 12/11/2018 1:52 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> 2018/12/11 7:03:57 -0800, [hidden email]:
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
> (webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/)
>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
> It also would be good to discuss the instances that you’ve proposed
> to change in your patch.
>
> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.
>
> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?

I don't think our sensibilities need be so delicate as to be compelled
to purge mild exclamations from test files.

As noted elsewhere on this thread, the words altered in the proposed
patch which intersect with the words in George Carin's list of "Seven
Words You Can Never Say on Television," originate in up-stream sources
and would be better addressed there.

-Joe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Stuart Marks
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold


On 12/11/18 1:52 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> 2018/12/11 7:03:57 -0800, [hidden email]:
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> (webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8215217/webrev/)
>
> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.
>
> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?

I think it is faintly ridiculous to consider words like "crap" and "damn" as
vulgarities to be removed from source code. None of my dictionaries describe
"crap" or "damn" as vulgar, while they do describe other words as vulgar.

The "Where's that damn torpedo?" quote came from "Star Trek VI", which was rated
PG. [1] In the MPAA rating system, PG is the second-least restrictive rating,
above only the all-ages G rating. More-restrictive ratings include PG-13, R, and
NC-17. [2] The word "damn" or a variant occurs about five times in that movie. [3]

The MPAA takes language and swearing very seriously, with fairly strict
guidelines on the number of f-bombs and their context to determine a rating of
PG-13 or R. [4] Film producers will edit very carefully in order to achieve a
particular rating. [5]

Given that the producers of "The Martian" had to edit carefully in order to
preserve its PG-13 rating, whereas "Star Trek VI" and its five "damns" sailed
through with a PG rating, I think it's safe to say that the notoriously Puritan
MPAA [6] doesn't concern itself with the word "damn." Neither should we.

**

Adam,

Starting from your patch, I've removed changes relating to "crap" and "damn" and
the changes to upstream jszip.js. This leaves the patches appended below. The
SoftChannel.java change is most likely a typo that should be fixed. The
BitArray.java change is part of Xalan. We don't actually keep our sources in
sync with Xalan, but I note that upstream [7] has made the same change, so we
might as well change it too.

Would you like me to sponsor this change for you?

s'marks

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/

[2] https://filmratings.com/Tips

[3] http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie6.html

[4] https://filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf

[5] https://www.polygon.com/2015/10/22/9592366/The-martian-rating-fuck [warning,
language]

[6] No link, but a web search for "mpaa puritanism" will reveal an unbounded
number of articles railing against the arbitrary moralizing imposed by the MPAA
via its ratings system.

[7]
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xalan/java/tags/xalan-j_2_7_2/src/org/apache/xalan/xsltc/dom/BitArray.java?view=markup

**


# HG changeset patch
# User afarley
# Date 1544574289 28800
#      Tue Dec 11 16:24:49 2018 -0800
# Node ID 0c40c78b6d139eb05b0718d0b524a465419ee9cb
# Parent  b75a44aad06cd93c823159265a1f200bf0ce390c
8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

diff -r b75a44aad06c -r 0c40c78b6d13
src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/media/sound/SoftChannel.java
--- a/src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/media/sound/SoftChannel.java Tue
Dec 11 13:10:14 2018 -0800
+++ b/src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/media/sound/SoftChannel.java Tue
Dec 11 16:24:49 2018 -0800
@@ -1472,7 +1472,7 @@
                  }
                  for (int controller : co_midi_nrpn_nrpn.keySet())
                      nrpnChange(controller, 0);
-                rpnChange(0, 2 << 7);   // Bitch Bend sensitivity
+                rpnChange(0, 2 << 7);   // Pitch Bend sensitivity
                  rpnChange(1, 64 << 7);  // Channel fine tunning
                  rpnChange(2, 64 << 7);  // Channel Coarse Tuning
                  rpnChange(5, 64);       // Modulation Depth, +/- 50 cent
diff -r b75a44aad06c -r 0c40c78b6d13
src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/xalan/internal/xsltc/dom/BitArray.java
---
a/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/xalan/internal/xsltc/dom/BitArray.java
Tue Dec 11 13:10:14 2018 -0800
+++
b/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/xalan/internal/xsltc/dom/BitArray.java
Tue Dec 11 16:24:49 2018 -0800
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
       * This method returns the Nth bit that is set in the bit array. The
       * current position is cached in the following 4 variables and will
       * help speed up a sequence of next() call in an index iterator. This
-     * method is a mess, but it is fast and it works, so don't fuck with it.
+     * method is a mess, but it is fast and it works, so don't change it.
       */
      private int _pos = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
      private int _node = 0;
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Andrew Haley
In reply to this post by Adam Farley8
On 12/11/18 3:03 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>
> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>
> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
> those.

Zounds! Heavens to Betsy! Please defer this patch until April 1 2019.

--
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Remi Forax


----- Mail original -----
> De: "Andrew Haley" <[hidden email]>
> À: "Adam Farley8" <[hidden email]>, "core-libs-dev" <[hidden email]>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 12 Décembre 2018 10:50:52
> Objet: Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

> On 12/11/18 3:03 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>
>> I've spotted 12 instances of swear words in OpenJDK source comments, and
>> it seems appropriate to remove them.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215217
>>
>> I've created a webrev and attached to the bug.
>>
>> Also, I've mentioned in the bug that there are additional swears in more
>> excusable locations. It would be good to get the community's take on
>> those.
>
> Zounds! Heavens to Betsy! Please defer this patch until April 1 2019.

Global Warming perhaps ?
that's said we should fix the typo in SoftChannel.

>
> --
> Andrew Haley
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

Rémi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Andrew Dinn
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On 11/12/2018 21:52, [hidden email] wrote:
> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.
>
> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?
I agree that strikes a better balance. I believe Stuart Marks (adjacent)
post makes a good, clear case as to why and appropriately corrects the
originally proposed solution.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Andrew Haley
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On 12/11/18 9:52 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I can certainly see removing the f-word, and other words of a sexual
> nature.  Those are clearly inappropriate.

Fair enough, but we shouldn't touch imported sources, as Joe Darcy
pointed out. Let the rudeness be fixed at source.

> Removing lesser words, and continuing to police their use henceforth,
> strikes me as overkill.
>
> What do other Committers think?

I agree with your judgment. Sometimes emphasis is important, and to reduce
a very strong emphasis to mild disapproval is an information-losing change.
We would be doing a disservice to the reader.

--
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR: JDK-8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Stuart Marks
2018/12/11 16:38:32 -0800, [hidden email]:

> Adam,
>
> Starting from your patch, I've removed changes relating to "crap" and "damn" and
> the changes to upstream jszip.js. This leaves the patches appended below. The
> SoftChannel.java change is most likely a typo that should be fixed. The
> BitArray.java change is part of Xalan. We don't actually keep our sources in
> sync with Xalan, but I note that upstream [7] has made the same change, so we
> might as well change it too.
>
> ...

Thanks for the enlightening historical analysis, and for wrangling
this patch.

> ...
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User afarley
> # Date 1544574289 28800
> #      Tue Dec 11 16:24:49 2018 -0800
> # Node ID 0c40c78b6d139eb05b0718d0b524a465419ee9cb
> # Parent  b75a44aad06cd93c823159265a1f200bf0ce390c
> 8215217: OpenJDK Source Has Too Many Swear Words

Nit: Please use sentence case in issue summaries (“OpenJDK source has
too many swear words”) rather than title case.  This is just a patch,
not a novel.

- Mark
12