From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Finding packages to enable by default Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:18:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <762bef11-2366-4b7e-909a-ce1a7805d648@default> References: <8761ra7uq3.fsf@yandex.ru> <6c891113-22b0-4f3d-afc9-a735548efbbb@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386098328 573 80.91.229.3 (3 Dec 2013 19:18:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:18:48 +0000 (UTC) To: Tom , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 03 20:18:51 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VnvUg-0003j8-Cp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:18:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44473 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VnvUf-0000YV-8q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:18:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57485) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VnvUU-0000YG-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:18:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VnvUL-00077m-P3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:18:38 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:18634) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VnvUL-00077g-Hw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:18:29 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rB3JIQSE013330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:18:27 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB3JIPwU023073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:18:26 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB3JIPmp023061; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:18:25 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:166049 Archived-At: > I suspect we'll see most of these packages among the top ones > again if more data is collected. Sounds like you think that the data gathered this way is in fact a representative sample, at least wrt most of the features reported. You might be right, but why do you think so? So far, I see no reason. Whether it is these features in reports today or different ones in reports tomorrow, why suppose that (most) bug-report features are representative of user configs? The purpose of gathering that feature data for bugs is, hopefully (but alas probably not so commonly), to learn something about the context that manifested the bug. That context is not necessarily representative of the user's typical config. In fact, it might well be pared down to provide the context of a minimal repro recipe being reported. In short, a bug report is not a feature report. But again, >> Not saying that the info you gather this way has no meaning. >> Just saying that not too much should be read into it (e.g., >> suppositions that it is representative in any way). and on that I guess we agree.