[Qgis-developer] QGIS update available plugin and/or ping back plugin

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

On 03-08-15 12:39, Vincent Picavet (ml) wrote:

> Repairing this feature, and maybe having an automated background check
> at startup would be good for this feature.

Which is actually the same as a pingback, except without an unique
identifier...
But I created an issue for the repair:

http://hub.qgis.org/issues/13178

>> Can privacy concerning people live with this plan?
> 
> Not me.
> 
> Any personal information sent by the user should only be done on a
> volontary basis.
> 
> I would agree with this if :
> * This is optional
> * This is not activated by default
> * The installer could ask the user if he wants to send statistics to the
> QGIS project, with a list of data items sent.

let's be honest: if you let ME opt out, I opt out....

We can already generate global figures based on downloads, or plugin
update requests...

Found out that access.log of plugins.qgis.org is not rotated, so some
grepping:

$ grep "/2014.*/plugins/plugins.xml?qgis=" access.log | awk '{print $1}'
| sort | uniq | wc -l
541711

$ grep "/2015.*/plugins/plugins.xml?qgis=" access.log | awk '{print $1}'
| sort | uniq | wc -l
546017

so about half a million unique ip addresses per year? Not sure how this
makes up for:
- several installation behind one reverse proxy ip
- roaming users or dynamic ip addresses
But... it is something.

The advantage of adding little more uniqueness info is to get better
numbers. Making it an option, will not add something to our current setup.

>> As an argument to allowing these pingbacks, as we/I invest pretty much
>> time in localisation around QGIS, it would make me feel better if I know
>> that all this work is actually be used by some people :-)
> 
> User statistics are indeed very important. Privacy is just way more
> important, especially in these troubled times. I do think we, as
> opensource community members, and digital era citizens, have to show the
> way. Do not ever do things users would consider evil without getting
> their agreement.

As said, for me it is rewarding to see that we have a lot of users, or
that translations are actually used. But I do not want to end up in a
privacy flame war. If consensus is that privacy is more important, I
take that.

Regards,

Richard