GSoC Project Selected | Incremental Rewrite of git bisect

GSoC Project Selected | Incremental Rewrite of git bisect

[Pranit Bauva]

Hey everyone,

I am Pranit Bauva studying Mining Engineering at Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur. I have applied for Google Summer of Code 2016
under Git organization and my project[1], "Incremental Rewrite of git
bisect has been selected under the guidance of mentors namely
Christian Couder and Lars Schneider.

Overview of the project:

Git bisect is a frequently used command which helps the developers in
finding the commit which introduced the regression. Some part of it is
written in shell script. I intend to convert it to portable C code
thus making them builtins. This will increase Git’s portability.


A word of thanks:

Firstly I would really like to thank everyone who was involved in
planning GSoC for Git especially my mentors. Also thanking Eric
Sunshine, SZEDER and Junio for patiently reviewing my micro-project
and helping me through that. It was a really great experience. I had
previously no clue about git bisect and have never used it mainly
because I was never involved with maintaining big projects. Posting my
idea to the mailing list (which initially contained a lot of mistakes)
was extremely helpful. Thanks to Christian Couder, Matthieu Moy,
Johannes Schindelin and Stefan Beller for providing useful comments.
Experimenting by converting one function really helped me a lot to
write the proposal. Thanks Roberto for making submitgit.

The subtle hints dropped were the most helpful. Thanks for explaining
those when I could not pick up those hints in the first time.

Status of Micro-project:
I had finalized v14[1] but recently Junio pointed out that the series
requires ordering and restructuring so I will finish with that. I have
my end semester exams going on so I will try to squeeze out some time
in between and try to work on the patches.

Status of the function conversion:
I had attempted to port a function 'check_term_format' from shell to
C. The last version was v3[2]. In the newer version (there only exist
a local copy as I have neither sent it in the mailing list nor I have
pushed it on github) as one test is not exiting properly. The code
written with confusing error handling and return statements which were
mainly there to help me understand "What's happening and where is it
happening?" As requested by Christian, I will still push these changes
to my github fork[3]. Also the function I have written does not use
the API of git as at that time I wasn't quite familiar with it. I am
still not completely familiar with it but I guess that will take some
time.

Status of learning about git plumbing commands:
I have learned about:
 - git-check-ref-format
 - git-rev-list
 - git-rev-parse

The one's left are:
 - git-symbolic-refs
 - git-show-branch
 - git-update-ref
 - git-for-each-ref

Status of Week 1 of my proposal:
In my 1st week I was going to set up kcov to test the coverage of
shell scripts as gcov does not cover them. kcov is a lot trickier than
gcov which I hadn't realized it before. I tried to use it in a simple
way but it just wasn't possible for me. So I dug further and found a
patch[5] submitted by Dmitry Vyukov. The linux kernel recently started
using kcov for their coverage and to also find bugs by using some
fuzzy logic. Setting this up is well not a piece of cake at least for
me. I tried reading his patch and wasn't quite able to digest it in
the first read but then I didn't look into that further. I would
really like if someone could look this up and recommend whether I
should try and implement this or not in the first week. If let's say I
try to implement it, then I probably think it is more than a week's
job. I recollect Matthieu saying that Paul Tan had used this before.
Could you please explain how he achieved this?

When will I officially start working?
My end semester exams end on 29th April, 2016 and I will reach my home
on 1st May, 2016. I will officially start working from 2nd May, 2016
and will complete reading up on plumbing commands and other API parts
which seems a bit ambitious as for now.

Other remarks:
 - I can now finally use git-send-email when I reach home.
 - I will regularly (weekly) keep posting my progress on my blog[6]
which will be revived  as it has been a bit stale for some time now. I
will also send the text-only version to the mailing list as requested
by Christian.
 - The more I dived in, the more it started to realize that my time
line needs some restructuring which I guess can be determined by the
above paragraphs.
 - I will also work out on a time line and post it on my blog[6] and
send it to mentors.

[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1stnDPA5Hs3u0a8sqoWZicTFpCz1wHP9bkifcKY13Ocw/edit?usp=sharing

[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291311

[3]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289599

[4]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git

[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2126762

[6]: http://bauva.in

Re: GSoC Project Selected | Incremental Rewrite of git bisect

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Pranit,

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016, Pranit Bauva wrote:

> I am Pranit Bauva studying Mining Engineering at Indian Institute of
> Technology, Kharagpur. I have applied for Google Summer of Code 2016
> under Git organization and my project[1], "Incremental Rewrite of git
> bisect has been selected under the guidance of mentors namely Christian
> Couder and Lars Schneider.

Awesome, congratulations!

Looking forward to seeing your project progress, and to you feeling at
home here in the Git developer community.

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: GSoC Project Selected | Incremental Rewrite of git bisect

[Matthieu Moy]

Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:

>  - The more I dived in, the more it started to realize that my time
> line needs some restructuring which I guess can be determined by the
> above paragraphs.

Do not worry too much about the timeline. The timeline you attached to
your project is not a plan to follow, but just a proof that you
understood the amount of work to be done and that you have an idea on
how to accomplish it.

I wouldn't be the first one to write "value [...] Responding to change
over following a plan" ;-).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

[GSOC update] Week 1

[Pranit Bauva]

My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.

The things I was able to do:

 * Finish off with my micro project[2] about adding a config variable for
   git-commit. There is still a little discussion going on about whether
   verbose should be retired and instead "commit.showDiff" should be used.
   Junio also made a little change to squash it with my patch to make the
   patch look more clearer to digest. Its difficult that this will be included
   in the release of 2.8.3

 * I converted the function check_term_format()[3] from shell to C as a
   subcommand. Faced some difficulty but was greatly helped by Christian
   Couder.

 * I converted the function bisect_log()[4] in a branch from the previous
   check-term-format branch as a subcommand. I was waiting for the first patch
   to get queued on maintainer's git.git repo so as to rebase it there and
   then send the patch.

 * I converted the function write_terms()[5] in a branch from the previous
   bisect-log branch as a subcommand and I removed check-term-format subcommand.
   I was waiting for the bisect-log patch to get queued on maintainer's git.git
   repo so as to rebase it there and send send the patch

 * I am currently introducing subcommands and calling them from git-bisect.sh .
   Eric Sunshine had proposed another top bottom approach wherein I first
   implement a skeleton and redirect it to git-bisect.sh so that the test
   suite is still passing. This method was used by Paul Tan in his last year
   GSoC project. Commit ids for reference, e1ea69fa4e and 73c2779f4 .

 * I ignored it and sent another revision of the series to which Junio wasn't
   quite enthusiastic over my reasoning for using subcommand approach. So
   I wrote an email[6] explaining how using subcommand way is beneficial to
   me, reviewers/testers, and my mentors.

 * I am currently waiting for that discussion to come to a conclusion. Till
   then I have paused on a bit.

 * I am now reading on the API part and planning how will I go about with the
   future functions. The functions I have converted till now were quite simple
   ones and the main difficulty lies ahead!

 * Anywhich ways I think this week was quite productive and if I follow this
   speed then the project is in a good shape to be completed well in time.

 * On a lighter note: I will be on a short vacation from 16th May to 19th May.
   So I will be unavailable till that time.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/293635
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/1
[4]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/2
[5]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/3
[6]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/293909

[GSOC Update] Week 2

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My micro project on adding config variable to git-commit for verbose options
is going to be merged with the master branch soon and will be available for
git 2.8.3 . I also rewrote a few shell functions in C.

My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * I have sent the patches[2] for check_term_format() and write_terms() so
   as to demonstrate how I am going to use the subcommand approach wherein
   I will first convert a method and then call it by using a subcommand.
   Then when another method is converted the previous method will be removed
   from the subcommand and will instead be called from the new method. Junio
   has collected this patch and queued it on a branch gitster/pb/bisect and
   is available for testing on the pu branch. I am encouraging people to
   test it and provide useful comments.

 * I have also converted bisect_log() and bisect_voc() whose patches[3] are
   sent to the list. Junio is yet to pick these up.

 * I have converted the function bisect_clean_state() but its in a very
   rudimentary form. Well I generally do like this. I first have a *just*
   working model of a function and then I polish it by introducing the git's
   API and write error handling code and resolve the style issues. Though it
   is available on github[4]. The current version plainly removes the refs
   using the git's API. I am quite aware that refs shouldn't be handled in this way
   (this fact is constantly reminded in the docs). I am reading up on the
   available methods for refs manipulation.

 * I have also sent an independent patch[5] to explicitly test whether
   bisection state is properly cleaned up.

 * Also studied the functioning (upto an extent) of git-for-each-ref and
   git-udpate ref as it is required during the conversion of
   bisect_clean_state().

 * The main part (I think) was that I read about the method's which handled the
   refs. It was an interesting read though I did not read upon the actual
   implementations of those, I mainly covered "What does the method do?" and
   "How to use the method in my code?". git-grep is my best friend for this.

 * I am still quite amazed by the amount of attention refs receive. Christian
   explained a bit though I still don't get the feel why they are *sooo*
   important. I was recently reading the Git Rev News and also seeing the
   patches by Michael Haggerty and David Turner and I was quite amazed on
   the amount of attention refs get.

 * I also noticed a minor thing with bisect cleanups[6]. After the bisection
   state is cleaned up the folder "refs/bisect/" is not removed. I pointed
   this out but Christian thought it is okay the way it is.

 * When I was converting the function write_terms() Christian advised to use
   `|| exit` when calling it with a subcommand using `git bisect--helper
    --write-terms $TERM_BAD bad` but it got the test no. 43 and 44 failing in
    t6030. On a little bit investigation by Christian, these tests seem to
    fail when there is a bare repo. He asked me to investigate it further.
    I have currently not found enough time. Will do it in the coming week.


================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish bisect_clean_state() conversion. I will first put it up on github
   to receive comments from my mentors and then post it to the mailing list.

 * Convert the function bisect_head(). I plan to convert this function and add
   it as a subcommand to test the implementation but I will only send the
   function without the subcommand to the mailing list because its a too small
   function. Though the subcommand version will be put up on github for
   everyone to verify whether it is passing the test suite like I have done it
   for bisect_voc().

 * Convert the function bisect_write(). I plan to convert this function and
   add it as a subcommand.

 * Investigate why test no. 43 and 44 are failing in t6030 with `|| exit` in
   --write-terms.


================================ NOTIFICATION ==============================

I will be taking a short vacation from 16th May, 2016 to 19th May, 2016 so
I wouldn't be available via email and also will not be able to work. I intend
to make up for the lost time by working on weekends.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294388
[3]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294571
[4]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/6
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294520
[6]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/8

PS: Thanks to Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> on providing his comments
of how to improve the format of this update email. I have tried to make it
as exhaustive as possible.

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

Re: [GSOC Update] Week 2

[Matthieu Moy]

Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:

> ================================= SUMMARY ==================================
> My micro project on adding config variable to git-commit for verbose options
> is going to be merged with the master branch soon and will be available for
> git 2.8.3 .

Nit: being merged to master doesn't mean you'll be in the next minor
release, but in the next _major_ one. 2.8.3 will only contain bugfixes
compared to 2.8.2.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [GSOC Update] Week 2

[Junio C Hamano]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ================================= SUMMARY ==================================
>> My micro project on adding config variable to git-commit for verbose options
>> is going to be merged with the master branch soon and will be available for
>> git 2.8.3 .
>
> Nit: being merged to master doesn't mean you'll be in the next minor
> release, but in the next _major_ one. 2.8.3 will only contain bugfixes
> compared to 2.8.2.

Correct.

Recent "What's cooking" lists the topic as "Will merge to 'master'"
but this does not promise in which timeframe it will be merged to
'master', so it may not even be in 2.9.0 at all.

Generally, what is in 'next' is marked as "Will merge to 'master'"
by default, until a reason not to do so is found, at which time the
mark is changed to "Will hold", etc., so saying "master branch soon"
upon seeing "Will merge to 'master'" is a bit of overstatement.

In fact, "git log maint..pb/commit-verbse-config" shows that this
new feature is not ineligible for the maintenance track.  It will
never be in 2.8.3 or any 2.8.x series.

Re: [GSOC Update] Week 2

[Junio C Hamano]

Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:

>    is available for testing on the pu branch. I am encouraging people to
>    test it and provide useful comments.

Do not encourage people to "TEST".  In general, do not put too much
weight on testing.  The result would only measure a small portion of
what you wrote in the code, i.e. what you covered with the addition
to the test suite, plus whatever tests we already had.

Instead, ask people to review.  A new code passing the testsuite is
a minimum requirement, and that is far from sufficient.

>  * I have also converted bisect_log() and bisect_voc() whose patches[3] are
>    sent to the list. Junio is yet to pick these up.

Again, my picking them up is not a success criteria (and certainly
being on 'pu' does not count for anything--it is nothing more than
"Junio saw them on the list and bookmarked the messages".

You should worry more about people not commenting nor reviewing them
than me picking them up (which would typically come later).

>  * The main part (I think) was that I read about the method's which handled the
>    refs. It was an interesting read though I did not read upon the actual
>    implementations of those, I mainly covered "What does the method do?" and
>    "How to use the method in my code?". git-grep is my best friend for this.

Yup.

You would not be calling for-each-ref from a C rewrite of
bisect-clean-state.  Instead you would likely be calling
for_each_ref_in() to iterate over the existing refs/bisect/* refs,
recording their refname and objectname from the callback to
something like string_list, and then after for_each_ref_in()
finishes, iterate over the resulting string_list and running
delete_ref() on them.

And reading the implementation of for-each-ref and update-ref is a
good way to find the need to use these API calls and how they are
used.  API docs are your second step.

Overall, good progress for an early week.

Thanks.

Re: [GSOC Update] Week 2

[Pranit Bauva]

Hey Junio,

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>    is available for testing on the pu branch. I am encouraging people to
>>    test it and provide useful comments.
>
> Do not encourage people to "TEST".  In general, do not put too much
> weight on testing.  The result would only measure a small portion of
> what you wrote in the code, i.e. what you covered with the addition
> to the test suite, plus whatever tests we already had.
>
> Instead, ask people to review.  A new code passing the testsuite is
> a minimum requirement, and that is far from sufficient.

Okay. Will keep this in mind.

>>  * I have also converted bisect_log() and bisect_voc() whose patches[3] are
>>    sent to the list. Junio is yet to pick these up.
>
> Again, my picking them up is not a success criteria (and certainly
> being on 'pu' does not count for anything--it is nothing more than
> "Junio saw them on the list and bookmarked the messages".
>
> You should worry more about people not commenting nor reviewing them
> than me picking them up (which would typically come later).

Sure.

>>  * The main part (I think) was that I read about the method's which handled the
>>    refs. It was an interesting read though I did not read upon the actual
>>    implementations of those, I mainly covered "What does the method do?" and
>>    "How to use the method in my code?". git-grep is my best friend for this.
>
> Yup.
>
> You would not be calling for-each-ref from a C rewrite of
> bisect-clean-state.  Instead you would likely be calling
> for_each_ref_in() to iterate over the existing refs/bisect/* refs,
> recording their refname and objectname from the callback to
> something like string_list, and then after for_each_ref_in()
> finishes, iterate over the resulting string_list and running
> delete_ref() on them.

Actually I was seeing how for-each-ref called filter_ref() and
planning to use that. But for_each_ref_in() seems much better. Thanks.
I had planned on using delete_ref().

> And reading the implementation of for-each-ref and update-ref is a
> good way to find the need to use these API calls and how they are
> used.  API docs are your second step.

Thanks. I have read the man pages as well as some parts of the
implementation (not the core details). API docs contain little
information about ref handling though. I can try trying writing some
documentation after GSoC project once I am comfortable with ref
handling.

> Overall, good progress for an early week.

Thanks!

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

> Thanks.

[GSoC Update] Week 3

[Pranit Bauva]

============================ INTRODUCTION ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which
partly exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more
portable. I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then
calling it from git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test
the function which is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>

============================== UPDATES =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * My patches for write_terms()[1] and bisect_log()/voc()[2] have collected
   some reviews from Eric Sunshine and Johannes Schindelin.

 * As advised in the reviews I have mainly read about git_path() and other
   related functions from cache.h

 * Also read up on the refs stuff like for_each_ref_in() which Junio
   mentioned in the previous update email.

 * I have made 2 commits[3] which I am keeping on hold for now as they are
   followup for a commit made by Jeff King which I came across while
   reading about git_path() and related stuff.

 * I have kind of finished writing bisect_clean_state() function. But I
   am still working on that as I suspect there might be something missing.

============================ NEXT STEPS ================================
Since I wasn't able to cover up many things this week (which I had
initially planned), those things have now been carried forward along with
a few other stuff. I plan to work more this week and the coming few ones
to make up for the lost time.

Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish off (finally) bisect_clean_state() conversion.

 * Convert the function bisect_head(). I plan to convert this function and
   add it as a subcommand to test the implementation but I will only send
   the function without the subcommand to the mailing list because its a
   too small function. Though the subcommand version will be put up on
   github for everyone to verify whether it is passing the test suite like
   I have done it for bisect_voc().

 * Convert the function bisect_write(). I plan to convert this function
   and add it as a subcommand.

 * Investigate why test no. 43 and 44 are failing in t6030 with `|| exit`
   in --write-terms.

[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294388
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294571

[GSOC Update] Week 2

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * bisect_clean_state() function is having a segmentation fault which is yet
   not fixed by me. I will try this for one more day and then send it to the
   list for RFC.

 * I also converted is_expected_rev() and check_expected_revs() which also has
   segmentation fault.

 * I also converted bisect_head() function. I changed the semantics a little
   bit. Previously the shell function used to echo the string, now it returns
   the value to the caller.

 * I investigated why test no. 43 and 44 are failing with t6030 with `|| exit`
   in the previous version of the patch but it didn't in the newer one. This
   is because the location of .git was hardcoded and thus it created problems
   with bare repositories.

 * I also sent a cleanup patch for using the marco GIT_PATH_FUNC to create a
   function instead of using git_path() because of the benefits described
   in the commit message of that change.

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish bisect_clean_state() conversion.

 * Finish is_expected_rev() and check_expected_revs() conversion.

 * Convert the function bisect_write(). I plan to convert this function and
   add it as a subcommand.

 * Convert bisect_reset() and add it as a subcommand.

 * Convert get_terms() and add the variables TERM_GOOD and TERM_BAD in a struct
   in the global state.


Regards,
Pranit Bauva

Re: [GSOC Update] Week 2

[Pranit Bauva]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
> ================================= SUMMARY ==================================
> My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
> anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
> discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.
>
>
> =============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
> The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
> exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
> I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
> git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
> is converted.
>
> Mentors:
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>

Its Week 4. Sorry.

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 5

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * bisect_clean_state() function is converted and I have fixed the
   segmentation fault. I am now polishing the patch with the help of my
   mentors and will soon send it to the mailing list. The seg fault occurred
   because I was deleting the refs in the for_each_ref_in() iteration. On
   sending the RFC[2], Michael Haggerty pointed out the fact that deleting refs
   causes some malfunction with the ref cache and thus triggering the seg
   fault.

 * I also converted bisect_write() function and currently I am polishing it
   with the help of my mentors and will send it to the mailing list. You can
   find the whole branch here[3].

 * As a preparatory patch for bisect_write() I also introduced a function
   file_size() which will get the file size without actually opening the
   file.

 * I also converted is_expected_rev() and check_expected_revs() and also fixed
   the segmentation fault. I am now polishing the patch with the help of my
   mentors and will soon send it to the mailing list. You can find the branch
   here[4].

 * My v2[5] on a cleanup patch to use the function macro GIT_PATH_FUNC is
   yet to receive comments.

 * I have also converted bisect_head()[6] but that would be sent to the mailing
   list along with bisect_state().

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Convert the function bisect_write(). I plan to convert this function and
   add it as a subcommand.

 * Convert get_terms() and add the variables TERM_GOOD and TERM_BAD in a struct
   in the global state.

 * Convert bisect_voc()

 * Convert bisect_next_check()

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295917
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/13
[4]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/10
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295524
[6]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/11


Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 6

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * bisect_clean_state() function is converted and sent out to the mailing
   list which received some useful comments from Eric Sunshine and the
   updated version can be found on bisect-reset branch[3].

 * I also converted bisect_reset() function and also introduced a file_size()
   method which received some useful comments from Eric Sunshine and Torsten
   Bogershausen. You can find the whole branch here[3].

 * I have also converted bisect_write() and will send it to the mailing list
   soon. The branch can be found here[4].

 * I also converted is_expected_rev() and check_expected_revs(). I sent
   it to the mailing list which collected some useful reviews from Eric
   Sunshine. I have updated according to the reviews. I need to confirm it
   once before I send it out on the mailing list. You can find the branch
   here[3].

 * My v2[5] on a cleanup patch to use the function macro GIT_PATH_FUNC is
   yet queued on the pu branch.

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * check_and_set_terms(): This function uses the two global variables in the
   script namely TERM_GOOD TERM_BAD. I have decided to pass then as arguments.

 * get_terms(): This will also introduce a struct to store global variables
   namely TERM_GOOD and TERM_BAD.

 * bisect_terms().

 * bisect_next_check().

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/13
[4]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/14
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295524


Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 7

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * I have converted check_and_set_terms() and have also sent an RFC[2] to the
   mailing list for discussion which hasn't yet collected any comments. It is
   kind of important to discuss this as it uses a way to set the global
   variables in the script by writing it to a file and then reading it.

 * I have also converted bisect_next_check() but this has a bug which will
   soon be fixed. This is available here[3].

 * I have converted get_terms().

 * I am on my way to convert bisect_terms() which should probably finish by
   tomorrow.

 * I also send out a patch[4] which describes the return value of
   strbuf_read_file() and is queued on the pu branch.

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish off bisect_terms().

 * bisect_run().

 * bisect_replay().

 * I have my mid term evaluations this week. Hope I clear it successfully.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297520
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/17
[4]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297266

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 8

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * I have converted check_and_set_terms(), bisect_next_check() and
   bisect_terms() and have also sent an RFC[7] to the
   mailing list for discussion which hasn't yet collected any comments. It is
   kind of important to discuss this as it uses a way to set the global
   variables in the script by writing it to a file and then reading it.

 * I have almost converted bisect_replay() and would be sending it out soon.

 * I have also sent a v3[6] of bisect-write[3] branch which contains
   bisect_clean_state(), bisect_reset(), bisect_write() functions.

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish off bisect_replay().

 * Start with the elephant function bisect_start().

======================= My Patches (GSoC project only) ======================

 * check_term_format patch[5]. This is in pu branch and Junio requires more
   reviewers to support it so that it can be merged into next.

 * bisect_write patch[6]. This is the v3 in the series.

 * bisect_terms patch[7]. This is an RFC and open for discussions.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/17
[4]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297266
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295518
[6]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298263
[7]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298279

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 9

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * I have converted check_and_set_terms(), bisect_next_check() and
   bisect_terms() and have also sent an RFC[7] to the
   mailing list for discussion which hasn't yet collected any comments from
   the list. My mentors have given their reviews on github and I will soon
   send the final patch series this week.

 * I have partly converted bisect_start() and a few ending parts are left.

 * I have stalled bisect_replay() for now as before I thought I would partly
   convert it and then call bisect_start() from it but then I realized its
   not worth the effort. So I will continue work on this after I finish
   bisect_start().

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish off bisect_start().

 * Finsh off bisect_start().

 * Finish off bisect_autostart() (small one, wouldn't take much time but it
   depends on bisect_start()).

 * Start with bisect_next().

This has been a slow week as I was meeting a few friends before their college
began and I plan to cover more in the upcoming week as even my semester is
going to start soon and I wouldn't prefer carrying over the work to my
college.

My next semester starts on 18th July.

======================= My Patches (GSoC project only) ======================

 * check_term_format patch[5]. This is in pu branch. The topic is pb/bisect.

 * bisect_write patch[6]. This is the v3 in the series. This has some minor
   nits as provided by Lars and I will send out a re-roll soon. This is also
   in the pu branch and is applied on top of pb/bisect.

 * bisect_terms patch[7]. This is an RFC and open for discussions. It would
   be very helpful if you can review it over github[8] as my mentors have also
   provided some comments.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/17
[4]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297266
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295518
[6]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298263
[7]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298279
[8]: 

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSOC Update] Week 10

[Pranit Bauva]

================================= SUMMARY ==================================
My public git.git is available here[1]. I regularly keep pushing my work so
anyone interested can track me there. Feel free to participate in the
discussions going on PRs with my mentors. Your comments are valuable.


=============================== INTRODUCTION  ==============================
The purpose of this project is to convert the git-bisect utility which partly
exists in the form of shell scripts to C code so as to make it more portable.
I plan to do this by converting each function to C and then calling it from
git-bisect.sh so as to use the existing test suite to test the function which
is converted.

Mentors:
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>


================================== Updates =================================
Things which were done in this week:

 * I have converted check_and_set_terms(), bisect_next_check() and
   bisect_terms() and have also sent an RFC[7] to the
   mailing list for discussion which hasn't yet collected any comments from
   the list. Some discussion is happening on github and I will send out the
   patched when the dust settles.

 * I have converted bisect_start() but there is a bug which I am still working
   on.

================================= NEXT STEPS ================================
Things which would be done in the coming week:

 * Finish off bisect_start().

 * bisect_next() has become a top priority because it would then help
   converting bisect_auto_next() and then it can be called by other important
   functions like bisect_start().

 * Following that I will convert bisect_auto_start()

 * Then bisect_replay().

======================= My Patches (GSoC project only) ======================

 * check_term_format patch[5]. This is in pu branch. The topic is pb/bisect.

 * bisect_write patch[6]. This is the v3 in the series. This has some minor
   nits as provided by Lars and I will send out a re-roll soon. This is also
   in the pu branch and is applied on top of pb/bisect.

 * bisect_terms patch[7]. This is an RFC and open for discussions. It would
   be very helpful if you can review it over github[8] as my mentors have also
   provided some comments.

============================= Notification ==================================
I will be travelling to my university campus from 14th July to 15th July so
I won't be available. I will resume my work after that.

[1]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git
[3]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/17
[4]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297266
[5]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/295518
[6]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298263
[7]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/298279
[8]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/pull/16

Regards,
Pranit Bauva

[GSoC] Update: Week 5

[Prathamesh Chavan]

SUMMARY OF MY PROJECT:

Git submodule subcommands are currently implemented by using shell script
'git-submodule.sh'. There are several reasons why we'll prefer not to
use the shell script. My project intends to convert the subcommands into
C code, thus making them builtins. This will increase Git's portability
and hence the efficiency of working with the git-submodule commands.
Link to the complete proposal: [1]

Mentors:
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>

UPDATES:

Following are the updates about my ongoing project:

1. sync and status: The patches were discussed with the mentors
   and after that, are being posted with this patch.

2. deinit: The patch is finally debugged, and is ready to be
   discussed. It is also attached with this update.

3. summary: While porting the subcommand, I underwent certain
   issues. After getting them clarified from my mentors, I
   have resumed working on it. I'm aware of the time I have
   taken for porting this subcommand is more than the previous
   ones. Hence will try my best to finish this in this week.

4. foreach: As stated in the previous update, the subcommand was
   ported without resolving the bug, and simply translating the
   present code, and adding a NEEDSWORK tag to the comment for
   mentioning the reported bug as well.
   But as communicating between child_process is still an issue
   and so there was no simple was to current carry out the
   porting. And hence, a hack was used instead. But after
   discussing it, instead using the repository-object patch
   series will help to resolve these issues in this situation.

PLAN FOR WEEK-6 (20 June 2017 to 26 June 2017):

1. summary: Mostly I'll be working on this and post the patch
   for discussion as soon as possible.

2. foreach: As it was decided that unblock the conversion of
   this submodule subcommand, the original cmd_foreach was
   ported without including the BUG-FIX patch here.
   Hence, for this week I will try to utilize the
   'repository-object' series by Brandon Williams.

3. deinit: I will be working on improvising this patch as it was
   recently debugged and posted for discussion.

[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1krxVLooWl--75Pot3dazhfygR3wCUUWZWzTXtK1L-xU/

Thanks,
Prathamesh Chavan

Re: [GSoC] Update: Week 5

[Andrew Ardill]

On 20 June 2017 at 07:41, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@gmail.com> wrote:

>    But as communicating between child_process is still an issue
>    and so there was no simple was to current carry out the
>    porting. And hence, a hack was used instead. But after
>    discussing it, instead using the repository-object patch
>    series will help to resolve these issues in this situation.

Just wondering, does that mean that your patch series is dependent on
the repository-object one? I saw some discussion around it recently
but couldn't see it in the latest whats cooking so maybe I missed what
has happened to it.

Really enjoying your updates, by the way, they are very clear and show
what looks like great progress!

Regards,

Andrew Ardill

Re: [GSoC] Update: Week 5

[Brandon Williams]

On 06/20, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 07:41, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >    But as communicating between child_process is still an issue
> >    and so there was no simple was to current carry out the
> >    porting. And hence, a hack was used instead. But after
> >    discussing it, instead using the repository-object patch
> >    series will help to resolve these issues in this situation.
> 
> Just wondering, does that mean that your patch series is dependent on
> the repository-object one? I saw some discussion around it recently
> but couldn't see it in the latest whats cooking so maybe I missed what
> has happened to it.
> 

Due to some of the discussion (and finding a bug with how git_path works
with worktrees) I decided to break the series up into smaller bits since
the original series was 30+ patches.  Once 'bw/config-h' and
'bw/ls-files-sans-the-index' have been merged into next I'll probably
send out v3 of the repository object series.

-- 
Brandon Williams

Re: [GSoC] Update: Week 5

[Prathamesh Chavan]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 07:41, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>    But as communicating between child_process is still an issue
>>    and so there was no simple was to current carry out the
>>    porting. And hence, a hack was used instead. But after
>>    discussing it, instead using the repository-object patch
>>    series will help to resolve these issues in this situation.
>
> Just wondering, does that mean that your patch series is dependent on
> the repository-object one? I saw some discussion around it recently
> but couldn't see it in the latest whats cooking so maybe I missed what
> has happened to it.

Sorry for such a late reply. In this update, and even in the latest update[1],
the patches aren't dependent on the 'repository-object' series.
But there are certain issues encountered which I aim to resolve
using them.

>
> Really enjoying your updates, by the way, they are very clear and show
> what looks like great progress!

Thanks a lot for this, and I hope to keep improving it. :)

Thanks,
Prathamesh Chavan

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAME+mvUrr8EA-6jbCZdpB7dMZ5CN3RyY7yoRoUBoiZw=sH6Ysw@mail.gmail.com/