ImageLib is boring and libpr0n is offensive, so that means we have to come up with a new name. Surely Pav can come up with one. Personally I don't understand what is wrong with Pav's original "Library for Picture Rendering Object Nodes" or, for that matter, "Library for Picture Rendering, version 0.n". But...
It appears blake backed down and so libpr0n is acceptable. VERIFIED.
I'm not shockingly impressed with 'libpr0n' (the name, that is) either, but there it is. Gerv
Nine minutes was not sufficient discussion of this proposal.. Please reopen it. Or, better, mark this one a dupe of bug #128502 which has had more discussion. The name libpr0n and the accompanying web site is a stupid stupid offensive joke and inhibits some people, myself included, from working on files in the libpr0n directory. Glenn
It was discussed at length offline. pr0n could stand for anything, and I don't think I've ever made any statement about what it stood for. I had nothing to do with the website, and I think you are taking it far too serious. Get over it man. You're the only person I know of who is offended by a name that doesn't mean anything.
The image library's name will always be libpr0n even if you don't like it. That's the name that was picked (for somewhat silly reasons at the time) and it will always be that. Would you rather the official name be well documented in the source? I never saw a reason since the directory name was what it is.
I don't even see how the word "pr0n" is offensive in the first place. Even if it was "porn" how is the word "porn" itself offensive? does that mean all software that can be used to view porn is offensive? is mozilla offensive? c'mon folks. We've moved past the 18th century.
Perhaps "libpr0n" standing alone isn't offensive. But in connection with the libpr0n web site (the first hit returned by Google), with which I believe you are familiar, it is. In the real world where I worked, heads have rolled for making jokes that seem similarly innocuous. The jokester and two levels of his supervision found themselves out of work, on the grounds of creating a hostile work environment. Please reopen this bug. I have transferred my vote here from bug #128502. Glenn
If we called it "libimg2" and someone (say, me) went ahead and registered libimg2.com and copied the libpr0n.com content to it, you would have the same problem. So the name of the library is irrelevant. If you have a problem with the libpr0n.com Web site, please take it up with its webmaster (me) in private e-mail, as it has nothing to do with Mozilla. This is the 21st century, not the 18th. If you, or people you work with, have problems with pornographic materials, you have problems much bigger than the codename of an internal Mozilla module.
I'm withdrawing my objection to the name "libpr0n" and have cancelled my vote for this bug. The sheriff won't be confiscating my computers, since he was recently forced to resign under sex offense charges. Don't believe me? Google for "harford sheriff resignation". The new sheriff hasn't as yet made a big issue of Internet pornography. BTW I still think the name libpr0n is somewhat unprofessional and I still don't feel comfortable telling my employer and family that I'm working on it.
Well, I was amused by it when I was browsing the source tree. It's the sort of joke the finds its way into a lot of software. Although I'm not quite sure why you have to say "I worked on libpr0n", rather than "I worked on the image decoding library of mozilla". For a start, it's a lot more obvious what you're talking about for someone not intimate with the mozilla tree.
Joe and I talked about doing this a few years ago. I think it's time to finally make it happen. Patch coming right up.
I think that bz will be the most appropriate sr here.
Created attachment 565742 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1 Attaching a patch. This patch was generated by doing the following: 1 - Rename of modules/libpr0n to image 2 - Source-wide grep for all files containing 'modules/libpr0n', followed by: perl -pi -e 's/modules\/libpr0n/image/' on those files 3 - Changing the depth on all the Makefiles, with a cross-check at the end to make sure they've all been fixed. Flagging joe for the module owner signoff, and bz for sr. If they're both fine with it, I'll flag khuey for the build-side review.
We can do better than "image", can't we? :)
Why do you need an sr here at all? This is a mechanical-ish change, no? If you need one, please pick someone comfortable with reviewing build system changes (so not me).
(In reply to Joe Drew (:JOEDREW!) from comment #20) > We can do better than "image", can't we? :) imagelib? (In reply to Boris Zbarsky (:bz) from comment #21) > Why do you need an sr here at all? This is a mechanical-ish change, no? Ok, sure. I guess the politics here have cooled off sufficiently such that it's unnecessary.
I don't think the politics ever involved anything other than the module owner liking the name. But Stuart is no longer module owner, so as long as the current module owner is happy, there's no problem.
Comment on attachment 565742 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1 (In reply to Boris Zbarsky (:bz) from comment #23) > I don't think the politics ever involved anything other than the module > owner liking the name. But Stuart is no longer module owner, so as long as > the current module owner is happy, there's no problem. Ok! :-)
Comment on attachment 565742 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1 Review of attachment 565742 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I am VERY SAD but Jeff points out that image is a better name than any of my alternates.
(In reply to Joe Drew (:JOEDREW!) from comment #25) > Comment on attachment 565742 [details] [diff] [review] [diff] [details] [review] > I am VERY SAD but Jeff points out that image is a better name than any of my > alternates. Just out of curiosity, why not imagelib? We've been namespacing new files as mozilla::imagelib, so it might be nice if they matched. 'image' does have aesthetic appeal though, so I'm happy sticking with that too. ;-)
(In reply to Bobby Holley (:bholley) from comment #26) > Just out of curiosity, why not imagelib? We've been namespacing new files as > mozilla::imagelib, so it might be nice if they matched. We should fix that by changing mozilla::imagelib to mozilla::image :)
pushed to try: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=5346aa9d36af
Last one was bitrotted by the time it was pushed. :\ Trying again: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=ffbcf69cacc9
Landed, with Brendan's approval, to mozilla-central: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0a5e72d1b479 Resolving fixed.