"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Sam,

Hi Branden,

>
> At 2026-07-31T22:59:47+0100, Sam James wrote:
>> "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:
>> > At 2026-07-31T21:23:35+0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> >> I think it's irresponsible to use the man-pages project to promote
>> >> personal idiosyncratic ideas like this in preference to what's been
>> >> the standard location of functions since 1989.
>> >
>> > I'm sure I don't need to bring to your attention what a mine field
>> > string/`char` sequence/memory buffer handling has been in C since the
>> > language's inception.
>> >
>> > More to the point: what's a better forum for pursuing this attempt at
>> > reform that will both (a) reach a significant population of stakeholders
>> > who can variously red-team it and/or endorse it; and (b) has sufficient
>> > visibility that it can't easily be ignored by people who oppose reform
>> > in this area for whatever reason?
>> 
>> I think the man page already tries to discourage use in its CAVEATS
>> section.
>
> Yes, but that's not a language reform, which is what Alex is pursuing
> with "alx-0097r1".  In at least one earlier iteration he's expressed his
> intention to submit an N document to WG14.
>
>> > I hope you do not wish to imply that a closed session of some
>> > committee, or unofficial backroom politicking would be preferable,
>> > nor that WG14 should close its doors to members of its user
>> > community who have not been vetted for a disinclination to
>> > boat-rocking.
>> 
>> I am confused as to where that implication could have possibly come
>> from.
>
> From familiarity with Alex's stated objective and rationale, which we
> can acquire from the recent list traffic Joseph characterized as
> irresponsible.

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining.

To clarify then: I have no issue with Alex advocating changes. I just
have an issue with man-pages being used regularly as a vehicle for that.

>
> AC> The C Committee is discussing standardization of <memory.h>, so
> AC> let's give it a bump.
>
> AC> I'll send you a copy of a paper I'm writing for the C Committee.
>
> AC> It is at the bottom of this email.  I will publish it as an N
> AC> document in August.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/784288e704183a4297aeaa3d13af8edab18bc1ea.1785532392.git.alx@kernel.org/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/amaTpQxd52iYjlor@devuan/
>
>> Joseph is opposing the change in the form of a patch that is
>> likely to be applied (*) to man-pages.git which has the effect of
>> advocacy.
>
> Yes, and he said so categorically.  More constructive advice might have
> taken the form of recommending a sequencing for staged changes.  Here's
> a crude sketch.
>

I agree this is more productive, thanks for setting it out.

> 1.  Expand "CAVEATS" sections in relevant Linux man-pages documents.
> 2.  Pursue N-document work with WG14.
> 3.  When WG14 has disposed of that N-document (and any descendants
>     thereof), update Linux man-pages documents as appropriate.
>
> Joseph's almost certainly better placed than I to add a "step 1.5"
> such that Alex might pursue some course that would better prepare the
> ground for his step 2.  I haven't attempted revision of the C language
> standard myself, so I can't offer specific advice regarding how best to
> pursue such an objective.  I possess only notions of elemental
> principles regarding how democratic, consultative bodies of technical
> experts _should_ serve the public.
>
> That _is_ what we're here for, right?
>
>> I don't think it has anything to do with WG14 membership or anything
>> of the like? What am I missing?
>
> See above regarding Alex's publicly circulated drafts and expressed
> plans.

What I mean is that I didn't take Joseph's comments to be an objection
to Alex's WG14 membership or anything of the sort, just that man-pages
isn't an appropriate vehicle for it. In any case, that's my position
even if I misunderstood Joseph's.

>
>> (*) Alex has a history of making opinonated changes like this to
>>     man-pages, such as removing references to older standards, and
>>     using a somewhat novel (to many) syntax for prototypes.
>
> I concur with that assessment.  However, a person having a history of
> making opinionated changes is not sound grounds for evaluation of a
> technical proposal, especially if it's topically unrelated.
>
> Preoccupying oneself with irrelevancies distracts from the conscientious
> execution of standards committee participation.
>

Thanks for your thoughtful email. I found it helpful!

> Regards,
> Branden

sam