Hi Xavier, Thank you for this proposal! It's awesome to see the community taking action on this.
`include` and `exclude` make sense to me. Probably obvious but is documentation and website considered as well as part of the KIP? This would be interesting because it could be also important to make these guidelines explicit for other components in the ecosystem (e.g. connectors) to follow. What do you think? Cheers, Jorge. On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:38 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Xavier, > > Thank you very much for starting this initiative! > Not only for the changes to the code base but also for showing me > where and how we can use more appropriate terms in general. > > Best, > Bruno > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:17 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Xavier, > > > > I think your approach made a lot of sense; I definitely didn’t mean to > criticize. Thanks for the update! The new names look good to me. > > > > -John > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, at 18:50, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > Great initiative! > > > > > > I liked the proposed names, too. > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > On 6/22/20 4:48 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > Xavier, thanks for the KIP! The proposed names make sense to me. > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> 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 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachments: > > > * signature.asc >
