* [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
@ 2018-03-20 9:00 Pratik Karki
2018-03-20 9:16 ` Christian Couder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pratik Karki @ 2018-03-20 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Pratik Karki, Christian Couder, Johannes Schindelin
Hi,
This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtin" for GSoC.
Please review and provide feedbacks.
https://gist.github.com/prertik/daaa73a39d3ce30811d9a208043dc235
Cheers,
Pratik Karki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
2018-03-20 9:00 [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins Pratik Karki
@ 2018-03-20 9:16 ` Christian Couder
2018-03-20 9:34 ` Pratik Karki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Couder @ 2018-03-20 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pratik Karki; +Cc: git, Johannes Schindelin
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtin" for GSoC.
> Please review and provide feedbacks.
>
> https://gist.github.com/prertik/daaa73a39d3ce30811d9a208043dc235
It would be easier for us to comment if the markdown was sent inline.
Thanks,
Christian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
2018-03-20 9:16 ` Christian Couder
@ 2018-03-20 9:34 ` Pratik Karki
2018-03-20 15:28 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pratik Karki @ 2018-03-20 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Pratik Karki, Christian Couder, Johannes Schindelin
Hi,
This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtins" for GSoC.
Please review and provide feedback.
Cheers,
Pratik Karki
Convert Scripts to builtins
===========================
Abstract
--------
Many components of Git are still in the form of shell and Perl scripts.
This has certain advantages of being extensible but causes problems in
production code on multiple platforms like Windows.
I propose to rewrite a couple of shell and perl scripts into portable
and performant C code, making them built-ins. The major advantage of
doing this is improvement in efficiency and performance.
Much more scripts like `git-am` , `git-pull`, `git-branch` have already
been rewritten in C. Much more scripts like `git-rebase`, `git-stash`,
`git-add --interactive` are still present in shell and perl scripts.
I propose to work in `git-rebase` and `git-stash`.
Shell Scripts:
--------------
Although shell scripts are more faster can be extensible in
functionality and can be more easier to write, they introduce certain
disadvantages.
1. Dependencies:
The scripting languages and shell scripts make more productive code
but there is an overhead of dependencies. The shell scripts are
lighter and simpler and call other executables to perform
non-trivial tasks. Taking `git-stash` shell script for example.
`sed`, `rm`, `echo`, `test` are constantly present in `git-stash`.
These look common to POSIX platforms but for non-POSIX platforms
there needs some extra work for porting these commands. For example,
in Git for Windows, the workaround for these commands in non-POSIX
platform adds some extra utilities and adds MSYS2 shell commands and
needs to pack language runtime for Perl. This increases the
installation size and requires more disk space. Again, adding more
batteries again needs implementation in all of the dependency
libraries and executables.
2. Inefficiency:
Git has internal caches for configuration values, the repository
index and repository objects. The porcelain commands do not have
access to git's internal API and so they spawn git processes to
perform git operations. For every git invocation, git would re-read
the user's configuration files, repository index, repopulate the
filesystem cache, etc. This leads to overhead and unnecessary I/O.
Windows is known to have worse I/O performance compared to Linux.
There is also slower I/O performance of HDD compared to SSD. This
unnecessary I/O operations causes runtime overhead and becomes
slower in poor I/O performance setups. Now, writing the porcelain
into C built-ins leverages the git API and there is no need of
spawning separate git processes, caching can be used to reduce
unnecessary I/O processes.
3. Spawing processes is less performant:
Shell scripts usually spawn a lot of processes. Shell scripts are
very lighter and hence have limited functionalites. For
`git-stash.sh` to work it needs to perform lots of git operations
like `git rev-parse` `git config` and thus spawns git executable
processes for performing these operations. Again for invoking
`git config` and providing configuration values, it spawn new
processes to handle that. Spawning is implemented by `fork()` and
`exec()` by shells. Now, on systems that do not support
copy-on-write semantics for `fork()`, there is duplication of the
memory of the parent process for every `fork()` call which turns out
to be an expensive process. Now, in Windows, Git uses MSYS2
exclusively to emulate `fork()` but since, Windows doesnot support
forking semantics natively, the workaround provided by MSYS2
emulates `fork()` without [copy-on-write
semantics](https://www.cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.api.fork). Doing this
creates another layer over Windows processes and thus slows git.
Rewriting C built-ins
---------------------
These above mentioned problems need to be fixed. The only fix for these
problems would be to write built-ins in C for all these shell scripts
leveraging the git API. Writing in built-in reduces the dependency
required by shell scripts. Since, Git is native executable in Windows,
doing this can make MSYS2 POSIX emulation obsolete. Then, using git's
internal API and C data types, built-in `git_config_get_value()` can be
used to get configuration value rather than spawning another git-config
process. This removes the necessary to re-read git configuration cache
everytime and reduces I/O. Furthermore, git-stash and git-rebase will be
more faster and show consistent behaviour as instead of spawing another
process and parsing command-line arguments manually, they can be
hardcoded to be built-in and leverage all the required git's internal
API's like `parse-options`.
To implement git-stash and git-rebase in C, I propose to avoid spawning
lots of external git processes and reduce redundant I/O by taking
advantage of the internal object, index and configuration cache. I
propose to use C data structures instead of needless parsing as C has
richer and performant data structures. Windows will definitely benefit
from these rewrites as the use of MSYS2 POSIX emulation would be
obsolete and unnecessary I/O processes would be reduced and there won't
be need of spawning external git processes.
But, while rewriting regressions should be totally avoided. The code
should not cause regression and introduce bugs not present in previous
scripts. Thought the re-write wouldn't look more simpler like previous
scripts, it should not have different behaviour or bugs compared to the
script and should not be hard to maintain compared to the script.
Potential Problems
------------------
### New Re-write code becomes less simpler and Bugs could get introduced:
C is a more verbose language than shell script and looks less simpler
than shell scripts. Doing things in less than 4 lines of shell script in
C can take up more than 12 lines to make it more simpler. For example,
in a previously used script `git-commit.sh` we can see,
```bash
run_status () {
# If TMP_INDEX is defined, that means we are doing
# "--only" partial commit, and that index file is used
# to build the tree for the commit. Otherwise, if
# NEXT_INDEX exists, that is the index file used to
# make the commit. Otherwise we are using as-is commit
# so the regular index file is what we use to compare.
if test '' != "$TMP_INDEX"
then
GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMP_INDEX"
export GIT_INDEX_FILE
elif test -f "$NEXT_INDEX"
then
GIT_INDEX_FILE="$NEXT_INDEX"
export GIT_INDEX_FILE
fi
if test "$status_only" = "t" -o "$use_status_color" = "t"; then
color=
else
color=--nocolor
fi
git runstatus ${color} \
${verbose:+--verbose} \
${amend:+--amend} \
${untracked_files:+--untracked}
}
```
This script has been rewritten as builtin in C.
These lines of code have been replaced in C providing more
built-in performance but looks less simpler and
contains high multiline functions in `commit.c`.
```C
`static int run_status(FILE *fp, const char *index_file, const char *prefix, int nowarn,
struct wt_status *s)
{
struct object_id oid;
if (s->relative_paths)
s->prefix = prefix;
if (amend) {
s->amend = 1;
s->reference = "HEAD^1";
}
s->verbose = verbose;
s->index_file = index_file;
s->fp = fp;
s->nowarn = nowarn;
s->is_initial = get_oid(s->reference, &oid) ? 1 : 0;
if (!s->is_initial)
hashcpy(s->sha1_commit, oid.hash);
s->status_format = status_format;
s->ignore_submodule_arg = ignore_submodule_arg;
wt_status_collect(s);
wt_status_print(s);
return s->commitable;
}
```
We can see the C version requires more lines of code and seem complex
than the script. But, this C code is not depending on external libraries
and dependencies hence provides good performance and can be optimized
further. The C codes after re-writing can be further documented,
optimized and designed to make it more simpler for maintaining it. The
functions can be documented with well-defined inputs, outputs and
behaviour. The internal git API can be used and the recurring codes can
be modified which can shrink the codebase and make git codebase smaller
and resulting in smaller installation size in different platforms.
Now, while doing this re-write there is high possibility of introducing
bugs. Though, the test-suite can catch obvious bugs, other less-obvious
bugs can escape from test scenarios. To fix this problem, new tests with
the co-ordination of other maintainers and contributors should be
written for the cases where the test fails to catch bugs. Other code
coverage tools can also be used to ensure that the test suite for the
command tests all code in builtin. Though it may take more time, careful
rewriting and review of code must be done seriously by doing one to one
line translations of shell scripts to C. The re-written code after tests
must go through rigorous review process to find and squash bugs present
in it.
> "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
> - Linus Torvalds
Timeline and Development Cycle
------------------------------
- Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
- Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
possible test improvements in for `git-stash` and `git-rebase`.
- May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.
- May 13: Making `builtin/stash.c` ready for review process. (This
goes on for some time.)
- May 26: Making `builtin/rebase.c` ready for review process. (This
goes on for some time.)
- June 10: Make second versions with more improvements and more
batteries ready for next review cycle.
- June 20: Writing new tests and using more code-coverage tools to
squash bugs present.
- June 25 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c` and
`builtin/rebase.c`. Benchmarking and profiling is done. They are
exclusively compared to their original shell scripts, to check
whether they are more performant or not and the results are
published in the mailing list for further discussion.
- Jul 20 - Aug 5: More optimizing and polishing of `builtin/stash.c`
and `builtin/rebase.c` and running of new tests series written and
send them for code review.
- Aug 14: Submit final patches.
- Aug 22: Results announced.
- Apr 24 - Aug 14: Documentation is written. "What I'm working on" is
written and posted in my blog regarding GSoC with Git.
About me
--------
I'm Pratik Karki and am studing bachelors in Computer Engineering in
Advanced College of Engineering and Management (Affiliated to Institue
of Engineering, Tribhuvan University). I've been writing C, C++, Ruby,
Perl, Clojure, Lisp, Java, JS, Erlang, Rust for 3 years, and contributed
to some projects which can be seen in
[Github](https://github.com/prertik). I've been doing independent
contract works for small upcoming start-ups in Nepal.
I have been planning to contribute in Git for a long time. Thanks, to
GSoC I've submitted small patch as a microproject: [test: avoid pipes in
git related commands for test
suite](https://public-inbox.org/git/20180319173204.31952-1-predatoramigo@gmail.com/).
I am looking forward to submitting more patches to Git on a long time
basis.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
2018-03-20 9:34 ` Pratik Karki
@ 2018-03-20 15:28 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-03-21 6:16 ` Pratik Karki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2018-03-20 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pratik Karki; +Cc: git, Christian Couder
Hi Pratik,
thank you so much for posting this inline, to make it easier to review.
I will quote only on specific parts below; Please just assume that I like
the other parts and have nothing to add.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Pratik Karki wrote:
>
> Timeline and Development Cycle
> ------------------------------
>
> - Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
> - Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
> possible test improvements in for `git-stash` and `git-rebase`.
> - May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.
I would have liked more detail here. Like, maybe even a rudimentary
initial version identifying, say, a part of `git stash` and/or `git
rebase` that could be put into a builtin (stash--helper and
rebase--helper, respectively).
It is my experience from several GSoCs working on this huge overarching
project to convert the scripts (which are good prototypes, but lack in
stringency in addition to performance) to C that even the individual
scripts are too much to stem for a single GSoC.
> - May 13: Making `builtin/stash.c` ready for review process. (This
> goes on for some time.)
There have been two past efforts to turn stash into a builtin:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/508
and
https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/
It would be good to read up on those and incorporate the learnings into
the proposal.
> - May 26: Making `builtin/rebase.c` ready for review process. (This
> goes on for some time.)
The `git-rebase.sh` script is itself not terribly interesting, as it hands
off to `git-rebase--am.sh`, `git-rebase--interactive.sh` and
`git-rebase--merge.sh`, respectively.
Converting `git-rebase` into a builtin without first converting all of
those scripts would make little sense.
It would probably be better to choose one of those latter scripts and move
their functionality into a builtin, in an incremental fashion.
By doing it incrementally, you can also avoid...
> - June 10: Make second versions with more improvements and more
> batteries ready for next review cycle.
... leaving two weeks between checkpoints. Also, doing it incrementally
lets you avoid sitting on your hands while waiting for the first patches
to be reviewed.
> - June 20: Writing new tests and using more code-coverage tools to
> squash bugs present.
Typically it helps a lot to have those tests *during* the conversion.
That's how I found most of the bugs when converting difftool, for example.
> - June 25 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c` and
> `builtin/rebase.c`. Benchmarking and profiling is done. They are
> exclusively compared to their original shell scripts, to check
> whether they are more performant or not and the results are
> published in the mailing list for further discussion.
Could you add details how you would perform benchmarking and profiling?
> - Jul 20 - Aug 5: More optimizing and polishing of `builtin/stash.c`
> and `builtin/rebase.c` and running of new tests series written and
> send them for code review.
> - Aug 14: Submit final patches.
> - Aug 22: Results announced.
> - Apr 24 - Aug 14: Documentation is written. "What I'm working on" is
> written and posted in my blog regarding GSoC with Git.
The timeline is a bit ambitious. I would like to caution you that these
are all big tasks, and maybe you want to cut down on the deliverables, and
add more detail what exactly you want to deliver (such as: what part of
stash/rebase do you find under-tested in our test suite and would
therefore want to augment, what parts of stash/rebase do you think you
would handle first, and how?).
Ciao,
Johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
2018-03-20 15:28 ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2018-03-21 6:16 ` Pratik Karki
2018-03-24 10:39 ` Christian Couder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pratik Karki @ 2018-03-21 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Pratik Karki, Christian Couder, Johannes Schindelin
Hi Johannes,
Thanks for the feedback. Thanks to you, I realized my proposal was
a bit ambitious. Both git-stash and git-rebase are big
commitment. After much analyzing, I found out I cannot complete
both in the given time frame. So, I decided to stick to one and
complete it. I decided to stick with git-stash. Thank you for directing
me to the un-merged matches. Now, I can find the points where the
patch couldn't be effective and work towards completing those
effective things.
Please provide feedback for this updated proposal.
Cheers,
Pratik Karki
Convert Scripts to builtins
===========================
Abstract
--------
Many components of Git are still in the form of shell and Perl scripts.
This has certain advantages of being extensible but causes problems in
production code on multiple platforms like Windows.\
I propose to rewrite a couple of shell and perl scripts into portable
and performant C code, making them built-ins. The major advantage of
doing this is improvement in efficiency and performance.
Much more scripts like `git-am` , `git-pull`, `git-branch` have already
been rewritten in C. Much more scripts like `git-rebase`, `git-stash`,
`git-add --interactive` are still present in shell and perl scripts. I
propose to work in `git-stash`.
### Shell Scripts:
Although shell scripts are more faster can be extensible in
functionality and can be more easier to write, they introduce certain
disadvantages.
1. Dependencies:\
The scripting languages and shell scripts make more productive code
but there is an overhead of dependencies. The shell scripts are
lighter and simpler and call other executables to perform
non-trivial tasks. Taking `git-stash` shell script for example.
`sed`, `rm`, `echo`, `test` are constantly present in `git-stash`.
These look common to POSIX platforms but for non-POSIX platforms
there needs some extra work for porting these commands. For example,
in Git for Windows, the workaround for these commands in non-POSIX
platform adds some extra utilities and adds MSYS2 shell commands and
needs to pack language runtime for Perl. This increases the
installation size and requires more disk space. Again, adding more
batteries again needs implementation in all of the dependency
libraries and executables.
2. Inefficiency:\
Git has internal caches for configuration values, the repository
index and repository objects. The porcelain commands do not have
access to git's internal API and so they spawn git processes to
perform git operations. For every git invocation, git would re-read
the user's configuration files, repository index, repopulate the
filesystem cache, etc. This leads to overhead and unnecessary I/O.
Windows is known to have worse I/O performance compared to Linux.
There is also slower I/O performance of HDD compared to SSD. This
unnecessary I/O operations causes runtime overhead and becomes
slower in poor I/O performance setups. Now, writing the porcelain
into C built-ins leverages the git API and there is no need of
spawning separate git processes, caching can be used to reduce
unnecessary I/O processes.
3. Spawing processes is less performant:\
Shell scripts usually spawn a lot of processes. Shell scripts are
very lighter and hence have limited functionalites. For
`git-stash.sh` to work it needs to perform lots of git operations
like `git rev-parse` `git config` and thus spawns git executable
processes for performing these operations. Again for invoking
`git config` and providing configuration values, it spawn new
processes to handle that. Spawning is implemented by `fork()` and
`exec()` by shells. Now, on systems that do not support
copy-on-write semantics for `fork()`, there is duplication of the
memory of the parent process for every `fork()` call which turns out
to be an expensive process. Now, in Windows, Git uses MSYS2
exclusively to emulate `fork()` but since, Windows doesnot support
forking semantics natively, the workaround provided by MSYS2
emulates `fork()` without [copy-on-write
semantics](https://www.cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.api.fork). Doing this
creates another layer over Windows processes and thus slows git.
Rewriting C built-ins
---------------------
These above mentioned problems need to be fixed. The only fix for these
problems would be to write built-ins in C for all these shell scripts
leveraging the git API. Writing in built-in reduces the dependency
required by shell scripts. Since, Git is native executable in Windows,
doing this can make MSYS2 POSIX emulation obsolete. Then, using git's
internal API and C data types, built-in `git_config_get_value()` can be
used to get configuration value rather than spawning another git-config
process. This removes the necessary to re-read git configuration cache
everytime and reduces I/O. Furthermore, git-stash will be more faster
and show consistent behaviour as instead of spawing another process and
parsing command-line arguments manually, they can be hardcoded to be
built-in and leverage all the required git's internal API's like
`parse-options`.
To implement git-stash in C, I propose to avoid spawning lots of
external git processes and reduce redundant I/O by taking advantage of
the internal object, index and configuration cache. I propose to use C
data structures instead of needless parsing as C has richer and
performant data structures. Windows will definitely benefit from these
rewrites as the use of MSYS2 POSIX emulation would be obsolete and
unnecessary I/O processes would be reduced and there won't be need of
spawning external git processes.
But, while rewriting regressions should be totally avoided. The code
should not cause regression and introduce bugs not present in previous
scripts. Thought the re-write wouldn't look more simpler like previous
scripts, it should not have different behaviour or bugs compared to the
script and should not be hard to maintain compared to the script.
There has been some development in `git-stash` as seen on
[<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/>]
(https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/).
To maximize the productivity, the findings from the patch submitted can
be used. Since, there are already much discussions regarding the
rewrite.
Potential Problems
------------------
### New Re-write code becomes less simpler and Bugs could get introduced:
C is a more verbose language than shell script and looks less simpler
than shell scripts. Doing things in less than 4 lines of shell script in
C can take up more than 12 lines to make it more simpler. For example,
in a previously used script `git-commit.sh` we can see,
```bash
run_status () {
# If TMP_INDEX is defined, that means we are doing
# "--only" partial commit, and that index file is used
# to build the tree for the commit. Otherwise, if
# NEXT_INDEX exists, that is the index file used to
# make the commit. Otherwise we are using as-is commit
# so the regular index file is what we use to compare.
if test '' != "$TMP_INDEX"
then
GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMP_INDEX"
export GIT_INDEX_FILE
elif test -f "$NEXT_INDEX"
then
GIT_INDEX_FILE="$NEXT_INDEX"
export GIT_INDEX_FILE
fi
if test "$status_only" = "t" -o "$use_status_color" = "t"; then
color=
else
color=--nocolor
fi
git runstatus ${color} \
${verbose:+--verbose} \
${amend:+--amend} \
${untracked_files:+--untracked}
}
```
This script has been rewritten as builtin in C. These lines of code
have been replaced in C providing more built-in performance
but looks less simpler and contains high multiline functions in `commit.c`
```C
`static int run_status(FILE *fp, const char *index_file, const char *prefix, int nowarn,
struct wt_status *s)
{
struct object_id oid;
if (s->relative_paths)
s->prefix = prefix;
if (amend) {
s->amend = 1;
s->reference = "HEAD^1";
}
s->verbose = verbose;
s->index_file = index_file;
s->fp = fp;
s->nowarn = nowarn;
s->is_initial = get_oid(s->reference, &oid) ? 1 : 0;
if (!s->is_initial)
hashcpy(s->sha1_commit, oid.hash);
s->status_format = status_format;
s->ignore_submodule_arg = ignore_submodule_arg;
wt_status_collect(s);
wt_status_print(s);
return s->commitable;
}
```
We can see the C version requires more lines of code and seem complex
than the script. But, this C code is not depending on external libraries
and dependencies hence provides good performance and can be optimized
further. The C codes after re-writing can be further documented,
optimized and designed to make it more simpler for maintaining it. The
functions can be documented with well-defined inputs, outputs and
behaviour. The internal git API can be used and the recurring codes can
be modified which can shrink the codebase and make git codebase smaller
and resulting in smaller installation size in different platforms.
Now, while doing this re-write there is high possibility of introducing
bugs. Though, the test-suite can catch obvious bugs, other less-obvious
bugs can escape from test scenarios. To fix this problem, new tests with
the co-ordination of other maintainers and contributors should be
written for the cases where the test fails to catch bugs. Other code
coverage tools can also be used to ensure that the test suite for the
command tests all code in builtin. Though it may take more time, careful
rewriting and review of code must be done seriously by doing one to one
line translations of shell scripts to C. The re-written code after tests
must go through rigorous review process to find and squash bugs present
in it.
> "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
> - Linus Torvalds
Timeline and Development Cycle
------------------------------
- Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
- Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
possible test improvements in for `git-stash`.
Firstly, the test suite coverage of every command will be reviewed
using gcov and kcov.The test suite might not be perfect or
comprehensive but must cover all the major code paths and
command-line switches of the script. For the tests which seem
inadequate, minimum required tests are written and developed
incrementally. The minimum tests must provide safety net for
migration of scripts to built-ins. The tests would be sent as a
separate patch for parallel development and review process so that
development of built-ins can happen at the same time productively.
The tests will be written for every code changes and will be worked
throughout the summer.
- May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.
The shell scripts are translated on a line-by-line basis into C
code. The C code will be written in a way to maximize the use of git
internal API. In git-stash `parse-options` API can be used for
implementing parsing argument of command-line. This would be way
better than parsing via the scripts. Firstly, I will start
implementing `stash --helper`from respective scripts to C code. Then
increment it further more. Then I'll start converting git-stash.sh
on a line-by-line basis.\
Again for git-stash some work seem to be done
[<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/>]
(https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/).
Now, to maximize the output I'll be taking findings from the
previous patch and use it for my patch. As seen from the comments in
the patch some tests for checking branch when `git stash branch`
fails needs to be written. New tests will be written and code
coverage tools will be used for the written code.
- May 13: Making minimal `builtin/stash.c` with `stash--helper` ready
for review process. (This goes on for some time.)
The initial review of minimal builtin would be ready for git-stash.
The result C code at this stage may not be necessarily be efficient
but would be free from obvious bugs and can serve as a baseline for
the final patch. This is sent for review process which can take some
time. The code will ofcourse be tested using the test suite with
some additional tests.
- May 13 - June 10: Make second versions with more improvements and
more batteries ready for next review cycle.
The improved versions after rigorous review process is made ready
for `builtin/stash.c`. This improved version will be functionally
equivalent to the previous scripts and will be error free and will
be ready for optimization and will be very extensible. It will use
the internal API and can be optimized for faster processes. Certain
recurring codes at this point are modified to decrease the code
base.\
At this point, the previous written tests will need some development
and with the more understanding of the working of the builtin code,
the tests are again optimized and code-coverage tools like gcov is
used. The tests are again updated and sent over in a separate patch.
The tests written at this stage will be very efficient and cover
across all code bases effectively.
- June 10 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c`. Benchmarking
and profiling is done. They are exclusively compared to their
original shell scripts, to check whether they are more performant or
not and the results are published in the mailing list for further
discussion.
The C code will be optimized for speed and efficiency in this stage. The
built-ins will now be profiled using the new efficient test suites to
find hot spots. Bench-marking is also done in comparison to original
scripts.The performance for stash can be measured by making it stash
large number of changes in another working directory and measuring the
time for completion of the task. After finding out, a graphical
representation of performance findings will be published to git mailing
list and discussions will commence on more optimization.
- Jul 20 - Aug 5: More optimizing and polishing of `builtin/stash.c`
and further polishing of tests series written and send them for code
review.
After discussions with the git community, optimization is done further
and the code and tests at this stage are polished for final submissions.
The tests are polished and rigorous testing of bugs and performance
penalty is done. This will help to find previous hidden errors if
present.
- Aug 14: Submit final patches.
The final patch series containing all the summer's code is
submitted for final review and merge to git.
- Aug 22: Results announced.
- Apr 24 - Aug 14: Documentation is written. "What I'm working on" is
written and posted in my blog regarding GSoC with Git.
The documentation of the code written is done in the whole summer.
Additionally, a blog series will be written in a weekly basis of my
current findings and will write about "What I'm working on" to
further provide information about my development of summer project.
About me
--------
I'm Pratik Karki and am studing bachelors in Computer Engineering in
Advanced College of Engineering and Management (Affiliated to Institue
of Engineering, Tribhuvan University). I've been writing C, C++, Ruby,
Perl, Clojure, Lisp, Java, JS, Erlang, Rust for 3 years, and contributed
to some projects which can be seen in
[Github](https://github.com/prertik). I've been doing independent
contract works for small upcoming start-ups in Nepal.
I have been planning to contribute in Git for a long time. Thanks, to
GSoC I've submitted small patch as a microproject: [test: avoid pipes in
git related commands for test
suite](https://public-inbox.org/git/20180319173204.31952-1-predatoramigo@gmail.com/).
I am looking forward to submitting more patches to Git on a long time
basis.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins
2018-03-21 6:16 ` Pratik Karki
@ 2018-03-24 10:39 ` Christian Couder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Couder @ 2018-03-24 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pratik Karki; +Cc: git, Johannes Schindelin
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Thanks to you, I realized my proposal was
> a bit ambitious. Both git-stash and git-rebase are big
> commitment. After much analyzing, I found out I cannot complete
> both in the given time frame. So, I decided to stick to one and
> complete it.
Great.
[...]
> There has been some development in `git-stash` as seen on
> [<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/>]
> (https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/).
> To maximize the productivity, the findings from the patch submitted can
> be used. Since, there are already much discussions regarding the
> rewrite.
In general it would be nice if you summarized what has already been
done, how you can reuse it and what is needed to complete it.
I see that you talk about some of that below, but a more general
overview might be nice too.
It could be interesting also to put the author(s) of the work that you
will reuse in Cc.
[...]
> Timeline and Development Cycle
> ------------------------------
>
> - Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
>
> - Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
> possible test improvements in for `git-stash`.
>
> Firstly, the test suite coverage of every command will be reviewed
> using gcov and kcov.
I don't think it is necessary to spend a lot of time on the test suite coverage.
> The test suite might not be perfect or
> comprehensive but must cover all the major code paths and
> command-line switches of the script. For the tests which seem
> inadequate, minimum required tests are written and developed
> incrementally. The minimum tests must provide safety net for
> migration of scripts to built-ins. The tests would be sent as a
> separate patch for parallel development and review process so that
> development of built-ins can happen at the same time productively.
Nice.
> The tests will be written for every code changes and will be worked
> throughout the summer.
>
> - May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.
>
> The shell scripts are translated on a line-by-line basis into C
> code. The C code will be written in a way to maximize the use of git
> internal API. In git-stash `parse-options` API can be used for
> implementing parsing argument of command-line. This would be way
> better than parsing via the scripts. Firstly, I will start
> implementing `stash --helper`from respective scripts to C code. Then
> increment it further more. Then I'll start converting git-stash.sh
> on a line-by-line basis.
Not sure what you mean by line-by-line basis.
> Again for git-stash some work seem to be done
> [<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/>]
> (https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/).
> Now, to maximize the output I'll be taking findings from the
> previous patch and use it for my patch. As seen from the comments in
> the patch some tests for checking branch when `git stash branch`
> fails needs to be written.
Nice. Maybe writing those tests can come earlier in you schedule.
> New tests will be written and code
> coverage tools will be used for the written code.
Not sure that code coverage tools need to be used.
> - May 13: Making minimal `builtin/stash.c` with `stash--helper` ready
> for review process. (This goes on for some time.)
>
> The initial review of minimal builtin would be ready for git-stash.
> The result C code at this stage may not be necessarily be efficient
> but would be free from obvious bugs and can serve as a baseline for
> the final patch. This is sent for review process which can take some
> time. The code will ofcourse be tested using the test suite with
> some additional tests.
How does that relates with the existing work? Will this be one or
several patch series? What will each patch do?
[...]
> - June 10 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c`. Benchmarking
> and profiling is done. They are exclusively compared to their
> original shell scripts, to check whether they are more performant or
> not and the results are published in the mailing list for further
> discussion.
Will the performance tests be added to the t/perf tests?
> The C code will be optimized for speed and efficiency in this stage. The
> built-ins will now be profiled using the new efficient test suites to
> find hot spots. Bench-marking is also done in comparison to original
> scripts.The performance for stash can be measured by making it stash
> large number of changes in another working directory and measuring the
> time for completion of the task. After finding out, a graphical
> representation of performance findings will be published to git mailing
> list and discussions will commence on more optimization.
>
> - Jul 20 - Aug 5: More optimizing and polishing of `builtin/stash.c`
> and further polishing of tests series written and send them for code
> review.
>
> After discussions with the git community, optimization is done further
> and the code and tests at this stage are polished for final submissions.
Often there is not much time for optimization and a lot more time is
spent on improving the structure of the patch series and the patch
themselves through many review rounds. We also expect that many of the
early patch series have been already polished and submitted many times
before the last weeks of the GSoC.
[...]
> - Apr 24 - Aug 14: Documentation is written.
What kind of documentation is that? In the Git project we expect that
the documentation for the work done comes with the work itself. It can
be in the form of the cover letter of a patch series, or the commit
messages of the patches that are sent to the mailing list, or in
patches that change files in Documentation/.
> "What I'm working on" is
> written and posted in my blog regarding GSoC with Git.
>
> The documentation of the code written is done in the whole summer.
> Additionally, a blog series will be written in a weekly basis of my
> current findings and will write about "What I'm working on" to
> further provide information about my development of summer project.
Nice.
> About me
> --------
>
> I'm Pratik Karki and am studing bachelors in Computer Engineering in
> Advanced College of Engineering and Management (Affiliated to Institue
> of Engineering, Tribhuvan University). I've been writing C, C++, Ruby,
> Perl, Clojure, Lisp, Java, JS, Erlang, Rust for 3 years, and contributed
> to some projects which can be seen in
> [Github](https://github.com/prertik). I've been doing independent
> contract works for small upcoming start-ups in Nepal.
> I have been planning to contribute in Git for a long time. Thanks, to
> GSoC I've submitted small patch as a microproject: [test: avoid pipes in
> git related commands for test
> suite](https://public-inbox.org/git/20180319173204.31952-1-predatoramigo@gmail.com/).
> I am looking forward to submitting more patches to Git on a long time
> basis.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-03-24 10:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-03-20 9:00 [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins Pratik Karki
2018-03-20 9:16 ` Christian Couder
2018-03-20 9:34 ` Pratik Karki
2018-03-20 15:28 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-03-21 6:16 ` Pratik Karki
2018-03-24 10:39 ` Christian Couder
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).