Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-04-10

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
>> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
>> to discuss or vote on.
>
> I would like the council to follow up on the results of robbat2's
> portage repo usage survey:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/c2ffa62837fd4cbdd42945bf57b09b25
>
> The following two points should be discussed and possibly be voted on:
>
> 1. Should we continue providing ChangeLog files in the rsync
> distribution?
>
> Some facts: As of today, ChangeLog* files take up 156 MiB out of a
> total size of 390 MiB in the rsync tree, or 40 %. The files propagated
> from CVS (i.e. ChangeLog-20*) account for 103 MiB, whereas the
> ChangeLog files generated from Git commit messages account for 53 MiB.
>
> Even when ignoring the initial Git commit (whose message is duplicated
> in all ChangeLogs and accounts for 25 MiB), we still have a growth
> rate of 28 MiB in 239 days (2015-08-08 to 2016-04-03) which is 43 MiB
> per year.
>
> 2. If we continue providing Changelogs, then what should be their
> order of entries?

What project (if any) is officially responsible for the creation or
non-creation of Changelogs in the rsync mirrors?  Do they have an
opinion on this matter?  Would they prefer that the Council make a
decision?

I bring this up because this seems like the sort of thing the Council
typically doesn't interfere with.

Right now I'm personally inclined to vote against any resolution
requiring anybody to do anything simply because I don't see a pressing
need to impose a policy on them.  I'd encourage anybody who wants a
repo with different/absent Changelogs to just create one and let
others sync it as they desire.

I can certainly see the pros and cons but they don't really seem all
that dramatic to me.

-- 
Rich