Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-01 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is
>> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries?
> I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format quite
> yet, but did so this afternoon:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/
>
> I have included a CSV of the public answers, excludes only the last
> question about contact info.
>
> Some remarks about question #2 and #3:
>
> Q2: Reduce local disk usage by excluding ChangeLogs?
> 
> It was unfortunately pointed out to me very late that my question #2 had
> some confusing text:
> - "No, but only if were optional (I do NOT want it, but others might)"
> - "Yes, but only if it were optional (I want it, but others might NOT)"
>
> The bracket portion of each answer was interpreted as meaning the
> opposite as the start of each answer :-(.
>
> Either way, ~60% are in favour of getting rid of changelogs.
Well, with those confusing answers I'd interpret it differently:

~15% are in favour of removal (see Q3)
~45% are in favour of available-but-not-default ("No but optional")
~40% are in favour of available and default

That'd be, like, 85% in favour of keeping changelogs, and about half the
people would want an option to remove them.
>
> IMO this is a BETTER goal than continuing to generate them for rsync,
> and bike-shedding about what the order should be; and it provides a huge
> benefit by reducing the size of rsync by 155MiB.
There's no bikeshedding about order (see below), and if most people are
in favour of keeping or providing optionally I don't see how removal is
in the interest of the majority - which was the reason you did this survey.
>
> Q3: What order should ChangeLog entries be in?
> --
> - 85.3% of responses either preferred newest first OR didn't care (incl
>   so as long as the tools work).
> - 2.9% wanted oldest first.
> - NOBODY selected "I'd prefer oldest entries first, but do what is best
>   for distribution"
> - 11.8% said get rid of changelogs.
>
So people want ChangeLogs in ChangeLog order. An important, but
unexpected result :)

The obvious thing to do is to continue providing ChangeLogs, in the
obvious order, and possibly document a way for users to exclude them
without breaking Manifest. I'm not sure if there's a simple/clean way to
do that except maybe providing two rsync trees ...





[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-01 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is
> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries?

I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format quite
yet, but did so this afternoon:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/

I have included a CSV of the public answers, excludes only the last
question about contact info.

Some remarks about question #2 and #3:

Q2: Reduce local disk usage by excluding ChangeLogs?

It was unfortunately pointed out to me very late that my question #2 had
some confusing text:
- "No, but only if were optional (I do NOT want it, but others might)"
- "Yes, but only if it were optional (I want it, but others might NOT)"

The bracket portion of each answer was interpreted as meaning the
opposite as the start of each answer :-(.

Either way, ~60% are in favour of getting rid of changelogs.

IMO this is a BETTER goal than continuing to generate them for rsync,
and bike-shedding about what the order should be; and it provides a huge
benefit by reducing the size of rsync by 155MiB.

Q3: What order should ChangeLog entries be in?
--
- 85.3% of responses either preferred newest first OR didn't care (incl
  so as long as the tools work).
- 2.9% wanted oldest first.
- NOBODY selected "I'd prefer oldest entries first, but do what is best
  for distribution"
- 11.8% said get rid of changelogs.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead, Foundation Trustee
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-03-01 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 02/08/2016 10:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev.
>
>
Council vote on it was 7:0 in favour:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575718

The change has been committed.