Russ Allbery:
> Niels Thykier <> writes:
>> While these changes are impressive, a 20MB HTML file is still a pain to
>> load and process.
> I agree that the page for pkg-perl-maintainers is probably not useful and
> probably not used by anyone.  But that's also an extreme outlier, I would
> assume?
>> I think my personal maintainer page is probably more typical.

3645 out of 3708 reports are less than 1MB (A bit below 99% of all full
reports).  So far so good.  However, these 99% accounts for 202MB where
the last 1% accounts for 206 MB of the total size (i.e. the last 1% is
>= 50% of the disk usage).
  The regular maintainer reports also have this problem - just a much
narrower scope with 13 reports out of 3708 (<0.5%) and 22MB out of 103MB
(~21% rather than ~50%).

My take:
I am fine with saying that the full report is the current style full
report for the 99% percentile, but I am missing something for the last
1% (where the page is >= 1MB).
  I do not think it is reasonable that >= 25% (35%[1]) of the size of
the website is "dead waste no one could possible use for any purpose".

When I see something like the "privacy-breach-generic" in love-doc[2], I
cannot help but see it as "an unhelpful wall of text that no one can
comprehend".  That particular "wall" accounts for something 85% of the
visual part Miriam's report.  I think this report would go from "useless
to probably useful" if we clamped that wall, so the reader does not
drown in it (after the third "page-down" it just gets boring).

Note: I have used 1MB as the "pain threshold" (although ideally, I would
like the pages to be smaller than that).


[1] Increases to 35% when we kill off the uncompressed log.


Reply via email to