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

2016-03-02 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > > The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse > $PWD to set the path ar

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

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > The main downside to using github would be that you don't get a combined history pre/pos

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

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > For example, the message of the initial commit 56bd759 appears in some > 18000 files, which accounts for 25 MiB. Not discounting the general issue, I wouldn't count the initial commit. All that space will get taken up the first time somet

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

2016-03-02 Thread malc
I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the github API directly... The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse $PWD to set the path argument...) curl https://api.github.com/repos/g

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

2016-03-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries >> generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we had >> only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs were >

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

2016-03-02 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries > generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we > had only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs > were introd

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH dtd] Remove outdated definition of global-scope

2016-03-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > Remove the long form of element that was likely used (or > supposed to be used) in the global metadata scope. It is currently > referenced in element only, and judging from the comments, > it is supposed to always be a URL there. Apparently the or

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH dtd] Remove outdated definition of global-scope

2016-03-02 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Remove the long form of element that was likely used (or > supposed to be used) in the global metadata scope. It is currently > referenced in element only, and judging from the comments, > it is supposed to always be a URL there. LGTM!

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH dtd] Remove outdated definition of global-scope

2016-03-02 Thread Michał Górny
Remove the long form of element that was likely used (or supposed to be used) in the global metadata scope. It is currently referenced in element only, and judging from the comments, it is supposed to always be a URL there. --- metadata.dtd | 25 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 inser

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

2016-03-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote: > 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/ Thank you. > Some remarks about question #2 and #3: > Q2: Reduce local disk usage