Please check the list for updated config / argument names. I also added a proposal to replace the term "blackout" with "backoff", which is used internally in the replication protocol.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:10 PM Xavier Léauté <x...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree we could improve on some of the config names. My thinking here is > that unless we had some precedent for a different name, it seemed > relatively straightforward to follow the approach other open source > projects have taken. It also makes migration for users easy if we are > consistent in the renaming, so we should find terms we can use across the > board. > > A cursory search indicates we already use include/exclude for topic > creation config in Connect, so I think it makes sense to align on that. > I'll update the KIP accordingly. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Xavier, I'm dismayed to see some of these instances are my fault. Fully > > support your plan. > > > > John, I had the same thought -- "list" is extraneous here. In the case of > > "topics.whitelist" we already have precedent to just use "topics". > > > > Ryanne > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 12:43 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Xavier! > > > > > > I’m +1 on this idea, and I’m glad this is the extent of what needs to > be > > > changed. I recall when I joined the project being pleased at the lack > of > > > common offensive terminology. I hadn’t considered whitelist/blacklist, > > but > > > I can see the argument. > > > > > > Allowlist/blocklist are kind of a mouthful, though. > > > > > > What do you think of just “allow” and “deny” instead? This is common > > > terminology in ACLs for example, and it doesn’t really seem necessary > to > > > say “list” in the config name. > > > > > > Alternatively, looking at the actual configs, it seems like “include”, > > > “include-only” (or “only”) and “exclude” might be more appropriate in > > > context. > > > > > > I hope this doesn’t kick off a round of bikeshedding. I’m really fine > > > either way; I doubt it matters much. I just wanted to see if we can > name > > > these configs without making up new multi-syllable words. > > > > > > Thanks for bringing it up! > > > -John > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, at 09:31, Ron Dagostino wrote: > > > > Yes. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2020, at 12:20 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you so much for this initiative. Small change, but it makes > our > > > > > community more inclusive. > > > > > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 6:02 PM Xavier Léauté <x...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Everyone, > > > > >> > > > > >> There are a number of places in our codebase that use racially > > charged > > > > >> terms. I am proposing we update them to use more neutral terms. > > > > >> > > > > >> The KIP lists the ones I have found and proposes alternatives. If > > you > > > see > > > > >> any I missed or did not consider, please reply and I'll add them. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-629%3A+Use+racially+neutral+terms+in+our+codebase > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you, > > > > >> Xavier > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
