From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261463AbVGWBBZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:01:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262263AbVGWBBZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:01:25 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:63955 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261463AbVGWBBX (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0400 Message-ID: <42E19654.5030402@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:59:00 -0400 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.3 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Lang CC: Blaisorblade , LKML , Andrian Bunk Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version References: <200507230244.11338.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Lang wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > >> IMHO, I think that publishing statistics about kernel patches >> downloads would >> be a very Good Thing(tm) to do. Peter, what's your opinion? I think >> that was >> even talked about at Kernel Summit (or at least I thought of it >> there), but >> I've not understood if this is going to happen. > > > remember that most downloads will be from mirrors, and they don't get > stats from them. > > David Lang > That, plus there is http+ftp+rsync (not to mention git downloads, etc.) and the noise caused by other sites mirroring *us*. -hpa