On 9-3-2014 23:33, Jesper Knudsen wrote:
The only think that this would "reveal" beyond what a YUM update does
is a unique ID and install date (why do we need that?). I do not think
we need an opt-in for that. Basically, as long as the data gathering
is so simple I do not even think a unique ID is needed -- we are not
looking for exact science here but marketing number and if a few
servers are behind the same router/IP that will, or should not,
disturb the picture much.
We could and should properly make an opt-in solution if we decided to
gather more detailed (and usefull??) data as I suggested.
Greetings,
Jesper
Although a unique key does not sound as a requirement for you, I know it
makes extension to the data model much easier, I think it is not such a
big hassle to create one for every server. I could imagine that in the
future we would like to now the install base on a per version base and
would like to have an update when a machine changes version number for
instance, this would be hard to do without a unique id. In other words
without the unique ID you do not know if you get duplicates and
statistics data is polluted easily, which IMHO defeats the purpose of
this exercise.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, e-mail discussion-unsubscr...@lists.contribs.org
Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
