>And I have no idea what our traffic for
>Android 2.1 and 2.2 is and if it is significant e.g. more than 1% of
>our traffic.
So the answer to this question (with preliminary data) is that neither 2.1 nor 2.2 amount to 0.05% of traffic to the mobile site.

I have attached the list of user agents and devices (with percentages) for the last 30 days. I did not included any device/browser combo with less than 0.05% of traffic. 

For about 4% of traffic we could not identify the browser, this might be cause the user agent was not there or because ua-parser could not figure it out, I understand this is not ideal but I am sending this cause I feel this list provides quite a bit of value and should help you triage bugs.

 iOS takes the cake which does not cease to amaze me. 

I described what I did to gather the data here (anyone with permits to 1002 can repro): 


On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>And I have no idea what our traffic for
>Android 2.1 and 2.2 is and if it is significant e.g. more than 1% of
>our traffic.
Understood, it is hard for you guys to work without knowing this data. I will try to get a user agent list for data from last month but, as I mentioned earlier, I think providing this data in a regular basis (monthly?) is a good goal for us. 

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Anything would be useful. I just hit this situation again. I was
reviewing some code and someone used JSON.stringify - this is not
available in Android < 2.3 and I have no idea what our traffic for
Android 2.1 and 2.2 is and if it is significant e.g. more than 1% of
our traffic.

In the mean time while I don't have a fancy place to find out the
answers to this how can I get these answers?
Should I mail the analytics mailing list to ask these questions? Cc a
point person on bugzilla with the question? Ping someone privately?

Jon



On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>Woah! Nice :D How are definitions updates handled?
> Since we talked about this on IRC, restating here to keep the archives
> happy.
> We pull the ua parser jar from our archiva depot, an update will involve
> building a new jar, uploading it to archiva and updating our dependency file
> (pom.xml) to point to the newly updated version.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Woah! Nice :D How are definitions updates handled?
>>
>> On 10 October 2014 18:58, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >1. A UDF for ua-parser or whatever we decide to use (this will possibly
>>> > be necessary for pageviews, but not necessarily - it depends on our
>>> > >spider/automaton detection strategy)
>>> We got this one ready today: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/166142/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 October 2014 16:02, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >At some point I believe we hope to just, you know. Have a regularly
>>>>> > updated browser matrix somewhere.
>>>>> I REALLY think this should make it into our goals, if it cannot be done
>>>>> this quarter it should for sure be done this quarter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree it would be nice. It's one of those things that will either come
>>>> as a side-effect of other stuff, OR require subsantially more work, and
>>>> nothing in-between. Things we need for it:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A UDF for ua-parser or whatever we decide to use (this will possibly
>>>> be necessary for pageviews, but not necessarily - it depends on our
>>>> spider/automaton detection strategy)
>>>> 2. Pageviews data
>>>> 3. A table somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Take 1, apply to 2, stick in 3. Maybe grab the same data for text/html
>>>> requests overall (depends on query runtime), maybe don't.
>>>>
>>>> The ideal implementation, obviously, is to pair this up with a site that
>>>> automatically parses the results into HTML. That should be the end goal. but
>>>> in terms of engineering support we can get most of the way there simply by
>>>> ensuring we always have a recent snapshot to hand. I can probably put
>>>> something together over the sampled logs and throw it in SQL if there are
>>>> urgent needs.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we not have more recent data than May?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't, but thanks to the utilities library I built, the code for
>>>> generating it would literally run:
>>>>
>>>> library(WMUtils)
>>>> uas <-
>>>> as.data.table(ua_parse(data_sieve(do.call("rbind",lapply(seq(20140901,20140930,1),sampled_logs)))$user_agent))
>>>>
>>>> uas <- uas[,j = list(requests = .N, by = c("os","browser")]
>>>>
>>>> write.table(uas, file = uas_for_jon.tsv, sep = "\t", row.names = FALSE,
>>>> quote = TRUE)
>>>>
>>>> ...assuming we didn't care about readability.
>>>>
>>>> Point is, in the time until we have the new parser built into Hadoop and
>>>> that setup, we can totally generate interim data from the sampled logs using
>>>> the same parser at a tiny cost in research/programming time, iff (the
>>>> mathematical if) we need it enough that we're cool with the sampling, and
>>>> people can convince [[Dario|Our Great Leader]] to authorise me to spend 15
>>>> minutes of my time on it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email Dario and I, if he prioritises it I'll run a check on more
>>>>>> recent data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At some point I believe we hope to just, you know. Have a regularly
>>>>>> updated browser matrix somewhere. This comes some time after pageviews
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10 October 2014 14:38, Toby Negrin <tnegrin@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jon -- I'm sure other folks will have more information but here's
>>>>>>> a link to a slide with some data from May[1]. We don't see a lot of Windows
>>>>>>> phone traffic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Toby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/presentation/d/19tZgTi6VUG04wfGWVzcaZKY26oQiXhPaHI9g2tBmMKE/edit#slide=id.g382406373_08
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was going through our backlog again today, and I noticed a bug
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> supporting editing on Windows Phones with IE9 [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet again, I wondered 'how many of our users are using IE9' as I
>>>>>>>> wondered if because of this lack of support we are losing out on
>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>> of potential editors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the easiest way to get this information now? Is it available?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55599
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Analytics mailing list
>>>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Oliver Keyes
>>>>>> Research Analyst
>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Analytics mailing list
>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Oliver Keyes
>>>> Research Analyst
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Keyes
>> Research Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>