Hi Pranav, In the JIRA and the previous mailing list thread, some of us wondered if the benefit is worth the transition pain. To quote Jason:
"The "log cleaner" naming may not be ideal, but it is not incorrect and some of the terminology used elsewhere makes more sense given this name (e.g. cleanable ratio, dirty offset). I personally see little benefit in the name change, especially if we have to propagate the change to configuration names (and it makes little sense if we do not do so). My guess is that most users have already gotten used to the "log cleaner" naming anyway, so adding new configs would just cause confusion." Do we have any evidence that users actually get confused by the terminology? Ismael On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Pranav Maniar <pranav9...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Following a discussion on JIRA KAFKA-1944 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1944> . I have created > KIP-184 > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 184%3A+Rename+LogCleaner+and+related+classes+to+LogCompactor> > as > it will require configuration change. > > As per the process I am starting Discussion on mail thread for KIP-184. > > Renaming of configuration "log.cleaner.enable" is discussed on KAFKA-1944. > But other log.cleaner configuration also seems to be used by cleaner only. > So to maintain naming consistency, I have proposed to rename all these > configuration. > > Please provide your suggestion/views for the same. Thanks ! > > > Thanks, > Pranav >
