1 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:07:13 PM CEST, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
>> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
3 |
>> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
4 |
>> to discuss or vote on. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I would like the council to follow up on the results of robbat2's |
7 |
> portage repo usage survey: |
8 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/c2ffa62837fd4cbdd42945bf57b09b25 |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The following two points should be discussed and possibly be voted on: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> 1. Should we continue providing ChangeLog files in the rsync |
13 |
> distribution? |
14 |
|
15 |
If space is the sole consideration, then, changelogs can be removed from |
16 |
manifests, and $PM default rsync command can exclude '*/*/ChangeLog*' (or, |
17 |
at least, leave the possibility to do it). This solution seems to be what |
18 |
would please everyone since robbat2's survey results can be interpreted in |
19 |
many ways, but for Q2, more than 50% voted "something but only if it were |
20 |
optional". |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
However, I think I recall a nice recap of some infra guy on how much time |
24 |
it took to generate them. IIRC it was bearable at the moment (a few hours) |
25 |
but still slow. Assuming infra hardware stays the same, where will we be in |
26 |
1, 2 or 5 years wrt to generating changelogs ? Is there something that can |
27 |
be improved on the software side or are we just bound to have slower and |
28 |
slower rsync distribution generation ? If so, how much slower does it get |
29 |
over time ? |
30 |
What I mean there is that if changelog generation takes 5 days then we |
31 |
don't have much of a choice but dropping them. |
32 |
|
33 |
Alexis. |