On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 10:50 AM Matthew Miller
> 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > the first time within each one-week window and a simple
> > GET /metalink?repo=fedora-28&arch=x86_64&edition=<blah>
> > 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