On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:04 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also, I still think the name Zinc (zinc is not crypto/) is needlessly > divisive and condescending, and unsaying it (in v2 and up) doesn't > really work on the Internet (especially since you are still repeating > it in your conference talk.) > Jason, you seem to hate the existing crypto framework with passion, > and the name reflects that. It's not divisive or condescending. I don't hate the existing framework with a passion -- this is patently false. The name even with its original acronym doesn't imply anything essentially negative. I see that you've repeatedly misinterpreted it this way -- which is why I removed that from v2 for the avoidance of doubt -- but that doesn't change the fact that its proper interpretation is not a condescending or divisive one. Look, people love to bikeshed about names. I'm sure you'll be able to CC-in a large crew of people who have opinions in one way or another, and this thread could begin to have many voices on that front or on multiple fronts. There are real benefits of sticking with the name I've given to the library I've spent enormous amounts of time writing. And so I'm going to stick with Zinc, since that's why our library is called. Sorry. We can talk about this at Plumbers in Vancouver if you want, but I think you're not going to get very far with a mailing list naming bikeshed. Meanwhile, I'm working around the clock to integrate your very useful technical suggestions, so please keep them coming if you still have technical nits you'd like to be in v7 of this patchset. Jason
