Issue #5625 has been updated by Andrew Grimm.

File pejorative_20111128.patch added

Eric Hodel wrote:
> I've looked through two of your patches and if we're going to remove profanity then let's not simply replace words you don't like with another word that leaves an equally unhelpful comment or method name.
> 

Ok.

> The first chunk of profanity.patch should be fixed not not mess up "p1"
> 

I am in the process of investigating this piece of code. When I clone the github project version of rubygems, and uncomment the commented out code, the unit tests pass on my machine. I still want to be able to replicate why the code was commented out in the first place, so I can ensure that the issue described no longer applies, and I'd have to check that the functionality that was commented out hasn't since been re-implemented elsewhere, or is now obsolete.

> The second chunk indicates the following line should be rewritten into something readable.
> 

Fixing that should be trivially easy. I'll work on that after the first item.

> The third chunk indicates a proper comment is needed for this variable
> 

I feel that explaining what's meant by the variable is probably best left to someone familiar with the project, not someone new to it.

> The fifth chunk indicates the method should be fixed
> 

I feel this is also more suited to someone familiar with the project.

> The final chunks replace the completely non-descriptive method "util_fuck_with_fetcher" with the equally completely non-descriptive method "util_muck_with_fetcher".  The method name should be replaced with a properly descriptive method name.
> 

Fair enough. A parameter that's more informative than "blow" would be good too.

> If your goal is to "to ensure that parents or teachers would be less likely to choose to block children's access to Ruby source code" I don't see why you wish to also remove pejoratives. Certainly there are far more books in a school library packed with pejoratives than you've found in the ruby source code. Uncle Tom's Cabin comes to mind first, and I'm sure there are more instances of "fuck" in print in a library than you've found in ruby. While I've never heard of access to any source code being blocked anywhere due to either profanity or pejoratives, perhaps it occurs in countries with fewer freedoms.
> 

If I had known that "tarded" was in source code when I was filing the original bug report, I would have filed two tickets: one for the profanity, and one for the pejoratives. And I would have gone into more detail why "tarded" and "lame" are inappropriate.

I had assumed that the person(s) who had used "lame" didn't know what the word originally meant (and therefore filing a separate ticket would be an over-reaction), whereas no-one has that excuse for using terms derived from "mentally retarded".

> The first chunk of pejorative.patch is a useful change.
> 
> The second chunk may as well omit "bad" since it is as useless an addition as "lame".
> 

Done.

> The third and fourth chunk should say something useful.  Neither "tarded" nor "ouch" are useful.
> 

Done. Does pejorative_20111128.patch look ok?

Thanks,

Andrew
----------------------------------------
Bug #5625: Remove profanity and pejoratives
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5625

Author: Andrew Grimm
Status: Third Party's Issue
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Eric Hodel
Category: 
Target version: 
ruby -v: F**king external libraries


There are currently 6 lines with the f-word, 4 lines with "wtf" that weren't just random combinations of letters, and one line with "bullshit". 

While I personally dislike such profanity, the main benefit from getting rid of it is that it'd mean people of all ages could read Ruby's source code.

There's also three lines where "lame" is used as a pejorative. Using a group of people as a pejorative should be avoided.


-- 
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org