-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor usages of blacklist and whitelist #5275
Comments
Hi, I am new to Open Source contribution and I would like to take this issue. Pls guide if u r ok with it |
Hello @ppalanisami and welcome! Since this issue was essentially just posted and has "Good First Issue" on it you absolutely can go ahead, and noting that on here can be helpful just for awareness - thank you! 👍 |
hi @jdrueckert @Cervator i would like to work on this issue. Could you please assign this issue to me? |
@fakegithub01 uh, interesting user name there, and now I'm starting to wonder if this issue is getting bot-attention, rather than any serious reading. |
@fakegithub01 @ppalanisami please just feel free starting to work on this and open a PR with your changes |
…t and blocklist We want to demonstrate our openness and inclusiveness in our code Resolves MovingBlocks#5275
Motivation
Whitelist and blacklist are nowadays referred to using the more inclusive terms allowlist and denylist (or blocklist).
Due to the age and size of our codebase, in older parts of the code we still use the less inclusive terms, e.g. in (ServerConnectListManager.java)[https://github.com/MovingBlocks/Terasology/blob/develop/engine/src/main/java/org/terasology/engine/network/internal/ServerConnectListManager.java]
We want to demonstrate our openness and inclusiveness not only in how we treat people but also in our code, so this should be changed.
Proposal
Search our codebase for usages of "whitelist" and "blacklist" and refactor these usages to "allowlist" and "denylist".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: