1 |
On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
>> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is |
4 |
>> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries? |
5 |
> I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format quite |
6 |
> yet, but did so this afternoon: |
7 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/ |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I have included a CSV of the public answers, excludes only the last |
10 |
> question about contact info. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Some remarks about question #2 and #3: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Q2: Reduce local disk usage by excluding ChangeLogs? |
15 |
> ---------------------------------------------------- |
16 |
> It was unfortunately pointed out to me very late that my question #2 had |
17 |
> some confusing text: |
18 |
> - "No, but only if were optional (I do NOT want it, but others might)" |
19 |
> - "Yes, but only if it were optional (I want it, but others might NOT)" |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The bracket portion of each answer was interpreted as meaning the |
22 |
> opposite as the start of each answer :-(. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Either way, ~60% are in favour of getting rid of changelogs. |
25 |
Well, with those confusing answers I'd interpret it differently: |
26 |
|
27 |
~15% are in favour of removal (see Q3) |
28 |
~45% are in favour of available-but-not-default ("No but optional") |
29 |
~40% are in favour of available and default |
30 |
|
31 |
That'd be, like, 85% in favour of keeping changelogs, and about half the |
32 |
people would want an option to remove them. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> IMO this is a BETTER goal than continuing to generate them for rsync, |
35 |
> and bike-shedding about what the order should be; and it provides a huge |
36 |
> benefit by reducing the size of rsync by 155MiB. |
37 |
There's no bikeshedding about order (see below), and if most people are |
38 |
in favour of keeping or providing optionally I don't see how removal is |
39 |
in the interest of the majority - which was the reason you did this survey. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Q3: What order should ChangeLog entries be in? |
42 |
> ---------------------------------------------- |
43 |
> - 85.3% of responses either preferred newest first OR didn't care (incl |
44 |
> so as long as the tools work). |
45 |
> - 2.9% wanted oldest first. |
46 |
> - NOBODY selected "I'd prefer oldest entries first, but do what is best |
47 |
> for distribution" |
48 |
> - 11.8% said get rid of changelogs. |
49 |
> |
50 |
So people want ChangeLogs in ChangeLog order. An important, but |
51 |
unexpected result :) |
52 |
|
53 |
The obvious thing to do is to continue providing ChangeLogs, in the |
54 |
obvious order, and possibly document a way for users to exclude them |
55 |
without breaking Manifest. I'm not sure if there's a simple/clean way to |
56 |
do that except maybe providing two rsync trees ... |