From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C73E1F47D for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 23:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=oKLxrkFV; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229698AbjBZXwU (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:52:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43094 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229516AbjBZXwT (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:52:19 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEAD1DBD6 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 15:52:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id s26so18939229edw.11 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 15:52:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=+piaxST6IvRj14KBjxvp6YJv1buQpySj1eP8v0/edIo=; b=oKLxrkFVfOiX+rZ0YY9h7jiEaiV3aj8tYCeNqHjB/zqXfde7nXYgkvq3yHgeU5bOSW ZwQRrUfLUfzZgkj9nnLXnDpzewZo7nopc+H3SFF2GAAcUZpJpavDhQ2UbwuyRCiozhx+ bTmqw41OF0WaqmJI0Gn8tvXJJSgvefW6dVQbhzXFjkcwy8eRLqaMo8WKjFxbACqFJ0Yt NNpwkghNg+VhLxP1jIaBxlhjuDjpABDV4zodVO0kdFhU9l5u9Nd5FrzlahATEn8Kb4SI FJYqN66dHDU95C1TbxppLHbI4mH/NiiabnBYSU3UNn7veXp20w/knxf58P9cJU/Re+eD FLog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+piaxST6IvRj14KBjxvp6YJv1buQpySj1eP8v0/edIo=; b=lvyuY8P9LvXVg2civOtrP9vQKmBuXxLj2CPiLcY0+qhzqdX9GFhep4D4jiS4uS9xus dV4C9dwyI38tq34Cwo2NIcggLFJsIzwiihvXvzBYgS9uQGN1xcx2TCdhvA8dJEPoj2oN OE9HAo0qk0rj9lENctahyPjNLBtlTTzN01PHqP8/n5PaUMqEnQYy9KXUznXRijlTXjOu mAbCKuiQtne0LgcD2VofRxo62e4lql/ylM6q4BpcvYBn0twjRO13rna8xqF+Y4AD8ox7 CeMdattC3yJrpzjZ9+lTWQT+p8t8fy4sam9F+qmfrwUpMNxFKZN1a1kEbnoypy3sKnJ0 g+kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWFvn783wJft49lPcpOvGBQ9cVgiIvnWWz8PuMyK3lo5vAOP54c N5h/eQ6JElY+ru4OSkUMA3d7scae4YmjDLy91G8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8lpGqW7ORrBxtrvXjxwd1Mtzb4RYILLtWOM5KTgTm9yBoeLvgt93Eu5Gm6Lw7doR6smKOjmLAEHuymnVFJSec= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ce59:b0:8b1:7de9:b39b with SMTP id se25-20020a170906ce5900b008b17de9b39bmr16059683ejb.1.1677455536049; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 15:52:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230226083347.80519-1-gvivan6@gmail.com> <5575804f-0918-fa7c-7af1-da2f4cf073f7@github.com> In-Reply-To: <5575804f-0918-fa7c-7af1-da2f4cf073f7@github.com> From: Vivan Garg Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:52:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] GSoC 2023 proposal: more sparse index integration To: Victoria Dye Cc: Vivan Garg , git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, hariom18599@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > Please wrap your text to 72 (or up to 80) characters; doing that will mak= e > this much easier for reviewers to format their emails. I've re-wrapped li= nes > I'm commenting on below. I wrote it in Word, copied and pasted it, and then sent it to the mailing l= ist. However, I will send a revised version that is properly formatted. > References to other sources (e.g. web links) are usually made with [] > footnotes. In this case, that might look something like: > > " > Git 2.25.0 introduced a new experimental `git sparse-checkout` command, > which simplified the existing feature and improved performance for large > repositories. It allows users to restrict their working directory to only > the files they care about, allowing them to ensure the developer workflow= is > as fast as possible while maintaining all the benefits of a monorepo. [1] > > [1]: https://github.blog/2020-01-17-bring-your-monorepo-down-to-size-with= -sparse-checkout/ > " > > Same goes for the other references you've included. Actually, I had all of the titles in the word document as hyperlinks; I'll make this change for the reviewers on the mailing list, but do you recommend changing= it in the final proposal I'm submitting to Google? > > +## Microproject > > + > > +t4121: modernize test style > > +Status: ready to merge > > To expand on the point made by Ashutosh [1], this microproject is not yet > tracked by Junio's "What's cooking" emails (most recent here: [2]), so it= is > not "ready to merge." "Under review" would be a more appropriate > description. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CACmM78QTptLOvNHs9oE2NNareSNDb+ydGFKr0VHu= boCBWSZbSw@mail.gmail.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq1qmeyfps.fsf@gitster.g/ I only put that in as a placeholder because the status is likely to change = by the time I submit my proposal. However, I'll change the placeholder to WIP. > > > Integration with =E2=80=9Cmv=E2=80=9D > > Integration with =E2=80=9Creset=E2=80=9D > > Integration with =E2=80=9Csparse-checkout=E2=80=9D > > Integration with =E2=80=9Cclean=E2=80=9D > > Integration with =E2=80=9Cblame=E2=80=9D > > Please include mailing list archive links to these series. I also had these as hyperlinks. However, I will include the link here. > "Two commands per 175 hours" is what I characterized as "rough > expectations," but the actual number of commands integrated for the proje= ct > will vary based on the complexity of the commands chosen. In a proposal, = I > would expect an applicant present their own, more detailed reasoning arou= nd > how long various parts of the project will take, rather than simply quoti= ng > my high-level estimate. > I said that "I'd be willing to extend as far as Oct 2 (four weeks) if > needed", but that's a general statement about my own availability and doe= s > not mean that I think such an extension is necessary in this case. The ~3= 60 > hours you mention is too large a margin over the 175 hours allocated for = the > project to properly understand your planned availability. I would prefer = a > more precise breakdown of the time you actually intend to send on the > project. Is it sufficient to assign an approximate time I intend to devote to each s= tep in my plan? Thanks!