From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mathias Dahl Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Windows barebin distribution Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4F8ADAFC.9030308@gmail.com> <831unp0xzq.fsf@gnu.org> <837gpj0vyo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071ce9e437ffd04ceca687d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1353268646 8282 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2012 19:57:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Christoph Scholtes , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 18 20:57:37 2012 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 1TaAzp-000206-2P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:57:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56177 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaAzf-0006VY-2N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:57:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaAza-0006V0-0o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:57:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaAzW-0004xQ-Ut for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:57:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:60096) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaAzT-0004wx-Ee; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:57:15 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id v13so5076565vbk.0 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:57:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=LKHIOw4Ry2m7KgMRtrkfgYh7RrvlkgvAJwJ516QwQHE=; b=IoTFTxUHxpN/JBxS5m+9ZYzxmMtmA/KKxj/UeFEWpHrq8A22FXcIgBhXO1SCXauS1n +eMnv0CAPbGf6Cbip7hChCbelEpU8GgNye3Zn4oxkVAGu8iMiiRlIOthlXw4ukFLLxDp 0OmIym8rjdzyvEo5jDmwfiYObWslmHbTzx02zAIpZDP1BtXVFO7eug3N2HcfU1oMaUve UJVUSYtrB+VN+K9NjI+EWrxButZjGLZwCONQf7H3wa6Ysllgx5oGSYfkhfunalX/ECIl f5HSnvcH6wLJ7YUe6e5qqr5O9OLJ6P8jJHnbKFKahl9V2eBFXIg33JgTNRHV0cFUT4AR AyFA== Original-Received: by 10.52.100.65 with SMTP id ew1mr14116145vdb.125.1353268634812; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:57:14 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.58.23.199 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:56:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <837gpj0vyo.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.212.41 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:154927 Archived-At: --20cf3071ce9e437ffd04ceca687d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > Would it be possible to check the access logs to see how many people > > actually download the barebin files? > > Since I wrote the mail to which you responded, 7 months have passed > and no one complained. I think by now it should be clear that no one > needs this. > I'm sorry for not noticing that. I don't know why Gmail decided to show me that old e-mail all of a sudden, I normally delete old e-mails from this list, not archive them, but maybe "something" happened. I see there have been some arguing about your reply to my reply above, and I'm not sure what to say, so I'll try not to say too much about it ;) I just happened to see your proposal of "testing" the users and thought it would be much more natural to check the download logs, which I assumed was under control of whoever runs that server. A few "greps" (or whatever) and some counts on those logs and you would know, not for sure, but it would seem like a better measurement than the planned "test". However, if the concept of the barebins were broken in some sense (that's how I interpret your and others' replies here), it's not anything worth arguing over. --20cf3071ce9e437ffd04ceca687d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Would it be possible to check the access l= ogs to see how many people
> actually download the barebin files?

Since I wrote the mail to which you responded, 7 months have passed and no one complained. =A0I think by now it should be clear that no one
needs this.

I'm sorry for not notic= ing that. I don't know why Gmail decided to show me that old e-mail all= of a=A0
sudden, I normally delete old e-mails from this list, no= t archive them, but maybe "something"=A0
happened.

I see there have been some arguing = about your reply to my reply above, and=A0I'm not sure what to
say, so I'll try not to say too much about it ;) I just happened to s= ee your proposal of "testing" the=A0
users and thought=A0it would be much more natural to check the downloa= d logs, which I assumed was=A0
under control of=A0whoever runs th= at server. A few "greps" (or whatever) and some counts on those= =A0
logs and you would=A0know, not for sure, but it would seem like a bett= er measurement than the planned=A0
"test".
However, if the concept of the barebins were broken in some se= nse (that's how I interpret your and=A0
others' replies here), it's not anything worth arguing over.

--20cf3071ce9e437ffd04ceca687d--