Re: F30: System-Wide Change proposal: DNF UUID

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 10:50 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:22:39PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > The additional information could be
> > > > 10.5.124.209 - - [31/Dec/2018:09:07:21 +0000] "GET
> > > > /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&uuid=<blah>&edition=<blah>
> > > > HTTP/1.1" 200 62200 "-" "dnf/2.7.5"
> > > If all you want to do is count, then it should be entirely sufficient
> > > to do it like this:
> > >    GET /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&edition=<blah>&countme=1 HTTP/1.1
> > > the first time within each one-week window and a simple
> > >    GET /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&edition=<blah> HTTP/1.1
> > > all other times.
> > > Then, sum up how many "countme=1" GET requests we get per week, and
> > > you have a good count, without tracking individual clients, without
> > > inventing new uuids¹.
> >
> > I do like this idea!
> >
> > And, if there's not an associated UUID, it's more comfortable to do
> > "countme=2" the second week and onward -- this would make it easy to
> > distinguish systems which are short-lived. (Or "countme=new" and
> > "countme=ongoing" or something?)
> >
> > Hmmmm. How comfortable would people be with reporting an incrementing count
> > *every* week (again, without a UUID attached)? That'd give a new axis into
> > the data which I can imagine being quite useful.
> >
> 
> 
> I like this idea and I think it's generally less likely to set off
> alarm bells about privacy. I do think we probably want to avoid an
> *incrementing* count, though to avoid questions around using
> time-of-install as a vector into identifying the owner. So the
> "new-vs-ongoing" differentiator seems reasonable to me. I *would*
> suggest that we probably want to have it send "countme=new" every time
> it tries to reach the mirrorlink until the first time it gets a proper
> response. After that, sending "countme=ongoing" once a week would be
> good additional information.

I'd propose countme=new the first time, then countme=thirty or the original version of fedora that was installed on this machine, so you could also track upgrades over time vs new installs.

V/r,
James Cassell
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux