Delete abortion joke

  None
  

On 05/06/2018 02:04 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche
> +
>  @node Termination Internals
>  @subsection Termination Internals
>  
> 

Thank you very much for the patch.

Please review the contribution checklist:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
  

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 14:13 -0400, Carlos O'Donell va escriure:
> Please review the contribution checklist:
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

Feedback on the content would be appreciated first. There seems to be
consensus that consensus is nice.
  

* Javiera Serrano Polo:

> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations

You should spell out the abbreviation.  It is ambiguous in a medical
context.

> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche

I still don't think this is appropriate, and I don't think it should
be added back.
  

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."

Please use this as the comment:

  @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

It's not merely a request.
  

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> 
> Please use this as the comment:
> 
>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

Too serious. How about this one?

@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

@strong{Richard says:}

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:04 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> I would like to find out what Leslie Jones thinks of the gag rule
> joke,
> Any suggestions?

http://www.fanmail (dot) biz/112281.html
  

On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:

> El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
>> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
>> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
>> 
>> Please use this as the comment:
>> 
>>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

> Too serious. How about this one?

> @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

How about replacing the current joke with:

  there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
  Aborted (core dumped)
  

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:
> 
> > El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va
> > escriure:
> > > Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> > > but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> > > Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> > > 
> > > Please use this as the comment:
> > > 
> > >   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.
> > Too serious. How about this one?
> > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't
> > remove.
> 
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)
> 

By doing so ulimit -c library.
  

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)

Haha! Thanks for that.

I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?
We might actually be able to get consensus on it!

Cheers,

Mark
  

On May  7, 2018, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> How about replacing the current joke with:
>> 
>> there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>> Aborted (core dumped)

> Haha! Thanks for that.

> I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
> a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?

Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.  The
consensus rules are too bureaucratic, weakly defined, and not applied
uniformly for me to feel confident of being allowed to install patches
under the rules.  This is not about this year's episode, BTW.  It was
one of the primary reasons why I moved back to GCC, where the rules of
patch reviewing and acceptance make a lot more sense to me.

But anyone should feel free to turn the above into a patch for the
manual.  Or this:

  if rms rules: we fork()
  else: we knife him
  truth: there's no spoon
  

On 05/07/2018 09:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

Just to clarify, are you stepping down as a GNU package maintainer 
for glibc?

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Stepping-Down

I would be very sad to see you go, you have contributed, and continue 
to contribute much to the project. Even if we don't agree, I still
value your contributions to the community.
  

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Too serious. How about this one?

  > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

Ok with me.

  > @strong{Richard says:}

I think it won't be clear who this refers to.
My last name is the crucial thing for that.
Also, "says" doesn't add to the humor.

"Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.
  

On 05/08/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>    there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>    Aborted (core dumped)

That is actually quite witty and maybe an accurate description of the 
current situation.

Siddhesh
  

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)

Fine option. Both could be included.

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 21:55 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>   > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
> Ok with me.
>   > @strong{Richard says:}
> "Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.

So it would be:

---
@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
@cartouche
@strong{Warning from Stallman:} [...]
@end cartouche

There used to be another joke about censorship here, but@enddots{}
@*@emph{Aborted (core dumped)}
---

To those opposing any replacement, I call upon your fun powers: do you
have any idea to improve the quality of these jokes?

Your answer does not invalidate your opposition. Also, committing this
does not mean the end of the issue.
  

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2018 09:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

> Just to clarify, are you stepping down as a GNU package maintainer 
> for glibc?

No, if I were to do so, I'd have done that long ago.

But I figured I would stick around, in case that was useful for GNU.

> I would be very sad to see you go, you have contributed, and continue 
> to contribute much to the project. Even if we don't agree, I still
> value your contributions to the community.

Thanks
  

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 22:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> How about replacing the current joke with:
> >> 
> >> there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
> >> Aborted (core dumped)
> 
> > Haha! Thanks for that.
> 
> > I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
> > a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?
> 
> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

Yet you manage to ignore consensus, question that we are now a
community-driven, consensus-based project, and generally annoy other
developers (eg, see below)?

> The
> consensus rules are too bureaucratic, weakly defined, and not applied
> uniformly for me to feel confident of being allowed to install patches
> under the rules.  This is not about this year's episode, BTW.  It was
> one of the primary reasons why I moved back to GCC, where the rules of
> patch reviewing and acceptance make a lot more sense to me.
> 
> But anyone should feel free to turn the above into a patch for the
> manual.  Or this:
> 
>   if rms rules: we fork()
>   else: we knife him
>   truth: there's no spoon

This is a statement I'd classify as toxic behavior.  It was probably
meant as a joke, but it's inappropriate because it suggests that in
reality, the people you are arguing with are on a personal vendetta or
something like that against RMS.  That's not the case.

They are standing up for glibc being a consensus-based, community-driven
project.  Of course, that clashes when somebody shows up and claims to
be the actual leader of it all and can always override community
consensus.  That's what RMS did, but it's not because it was RMS who did
that.  Anybody doing that would have heard the same from the community.

Another reason why I'd classify it as that, instead of being just an
instance of a bad joke, is that in my impression, you have been
repeatedly making statements like that in discussions (eg, slightly
distorting what others said, some ridicule and "jokes", wide-ranging
accussations, etc.).  And when others start to do similar, you claim
that all hell broke loose.

How would you feel if we were to start making "jokes" as the one above
about you, RMS, or others?