1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format |
4 |
> quite yet, but did so this afternoon: |
5 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/ |
6 |
|
7 |
Thank you. |
8 |
|
9 |
> Some remarks about question #2 and #3: |
10 |
|
11 |
> Q2: Reduce local disk usage by excluding ChangeLogs? |
12 |
> ---------------------------------------------------- |
13 |
> It was unfortunately pointed out to me very late that my question #2 |
14 |
> had some confusing text: |
15 |
> - "No, but only if were optional (I do NOT want it, but others might)" |
16 |
> - "Yes, but only if it were optional (I want it, but others might NOT)" |
17 |
|
18 |
> The bracket portion of each answer was interpreted as meaning the |
19 |
> opposite as the start of each answer :-(. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Either way, ~60% are in favour of getting rid of changelogs. |
22 |
|
23 |
Not sure if it can be interpreted this way. This would contradict the |
24 |
results of both Q1 and Q3. |
25 |
|
26 |
For Q1, 45 responses read ChangeLogs in some way (A1.2 to A1.5 or a |
27 |
combination of them), whereas only 17 responses don't read ChangeLogs |
28 |
at all (A1.1 or some combination including it). Disregarding the two |
29 |
responses who at the same time read them and don't read them at all. |
30 |
|
31 |
> IMO this is a BETTER goal than continuing to generate them for |
32 |
> rsync, and bike-shedding about what the order should be; and it |
33 |
> provides a huge benefit by reducing the size of rsync by 155MiB. |
34 |
|
35 |
Hm, that's almost 40% of the total size of the tree. |
36 |
|
37 |
$ find /usr/portage/ -type f -name 'ChangeLog-20*' -printf '%s\n' | awk '{ s+=$1 } END { print s/1024^2 }' |
38 |
102.961 |
39 |
|
40 |
That's the old ones from CVS. |
41 |
|
42 |
$ find /usr/portage/ -type f -name ChangeLog -printf '%s\n' | awk '{ s+=$1 } END { print s/1024^2 }' |
43 |
52.0908 |
44 |
|
45 |
That's the new ones autogenerated from git. |
46 |
|
47 |
How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries generated |
48 |
in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we had only a total |
49 |
of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs were introduced in 2002? |
50 |
Certainly our commit rate hasn't increased by more than an order of |
51 |
magnitude in the last half year? |
52 |
|
53 |
> Q3: What order should ChangeLog entries be in? |
54 |
> ---------------------------------------------- |
55 |
> - 85.3% of responses either preferred newest first OR didn't care |
56 |
> (incl so as long as the tools work). |
57 |
> - 2.9% wanted oldest first. |
58 |
> - NOBODY selected "I'd prefer oldest entries first, but do what is |
59 |
> best for distribution" |
60 |
> - 11.8% said get rid of changelogs. |
61 |
|
62 |
Ulrich |