Handling Unintended Language: What To Do About a Swear Word in a Merged Open-Source PR
Accidentally introducing inappropriate language into a public codebase is a common developer misstep that can spark diverse opinions on how to rectify it. One such instance involved a Polish swear word ("dick") embedded in a debug logging statement within an open-source project, which slipped past code review due to its non-English nature. The situation presented a dilemma: should the word be removed, or could it be left in given its specific context?
The Predicament of Unintentional Language
The core issue revolved around a single, non-user-facing Polish swear word in a debug log. While end-users wouldn't encounter it, maintainers running tests would. The question wasn't just about removing it, but finding the best way to do so, or even if removal was necessary, considering the potential professional and project-related implications.
Practical Strategies for Remediation
The most practical and widely recommended approach for discreet removal involves creating a small, focused pull request:
- Simple "Fix Typo" PR: A straightforward suggestion is to submit a pull request with an innocuous title like "Fix typo." This approach minimizes attention while clearly addressing the change. A brief, honest explanation within the PR description can provide necessary context without over-dramatizing the situation, making it a discreet and effective method.
- Subtle Modification: Another idea, though potentially limited by the specific word, involves altering a single letter to render it non-offensive. This modified change could then be presented as a simple "typo fix" to obscure the original intent.
Arguments for Retaining the Language
Not everyone advocated for immediate removal. Several points were raised to consider leaving the word in:
- Low Visibility: Since the word was in a debug logging statement and not directly exposed to end-users, its impact was deemed minimal. Only developers running specific tests would likely encounter it.
- Project Culture and Precedent: Some noted that even major open-source projects, such as the Linux kernel, contain instances of strong language. This suggests that in certain developer cultures, such words might be tolerated or even seen as part of a "colorful" expression within the code, especially when not malicious or user-facing.
- "Pretend it didn't happen": A simpler, albeit less proactive, stance was to simply ignore the incident, assuming it wouldn't cause significant problems if its impact was truly negligible.
Professional and Public Perception Considerations
A significant aspect of the discussion touched upon the professional implications of such an incident, especially when publicized. While the word itself might be minor, drawing attention to it could potentially lead to scrutiny of one's professional record or set an unintended precedent for other developers to include similar language. However, the humor of the situation was also acknowledged, particularly the idea of being "outed" for such a trivial matter. The overall consensus leaned towards questioning whether anyone would genuinely care about a minor incident in a debug log, especially if it doesn't affect the project's functionality or public image.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, the choice often depends on the project's specific culture and the individual's comfort level. While a quick, discreet removal via a "Fix typo" PR is a solid practical solution, understanding the context—like its presence in a debug log or within a non-English language—and considering the precedents set by other projects can also inform the decision to potentially leave it as is. The key is to weigh the actual impact against the perceived "offense" and the project's established norms.