On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:50 AM Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> 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 would opt in, and would not be bothered if it were opt out. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
