On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:55:01AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> wrote: > > anyone else want to chip in? > > I think "rotate log files" is sufficiently clear. I think that's > jargon that most sysadmins would understand, and it's also probably > the first thing people would search for. > > I'm not a fan of describing it as "trimming", because the files > themselves are never trimmed (i.e., truncate(2)), but I can understand > the use. > > I think any text mentioning that it's to maintain a reasonable size is > redundant; that seems like a pretty basic feature that you'd assume of > any real log rotation system. > > Just my 2c.
these are pretty much my thoughts. so unless anyone comes up with a compelling reason not to, i'll change it to "rotate log files". jmc
