Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] bisect--helper: rewrite of check-term-format()

[Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>]

Hey Eric,
Sorry for the late reply. I was on vacation.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I completely missed your point and you want me to go the Eric Sunshine's way?
>>>>
>>>> I am neutral.
>>>>
>>>> When I read your response to Eric's "top down" suggestion, I didn't
>>>> quite get much more than "I started going this way, and I do not
>>>> want to change to the other direction.", which was what I had the
>>>> most trouble with.  If your justification for the approach to start
>>>> from building a tiny bottom layer that will need to be dismantled
>>>> soon and repeat that (which sounds somewhat wasteful) were more
>>>> convincing, I may have felt differently.
>>>
>>> Sorry if it seemed that "I have done quite some work and I don't want
>>> to scrape it off and redo everything". This isn't a case for me. I
>>> think of this as just a small part in the process of learning and my
>>> efforts would be completely wasted as I can still reuse the methods I
>>
>> efforts would **not** be completely wasted
>>
>>> wrote. This is still open for a "philosophical" discussion. I am
>>> assuming 1e1ea69fa4e is how Eric is suggesting.
>
> Speaking of 1e1ea69 (pull: implement skeletal builtin pull,
> 2015-06-14), one of the (numerous) things Paul Tan did which impressed
> me was to formally measure test suite coverage of the commands he was
> converting to C, and then improve coverage where it was lacking. That
> approach increases confidence in the conversion far more than fallible
> human reviews do.
>
> Setting aside the top-down vs. bottom-up discussion, as a reviewer
> (and user) I'd be far more interested in seeing you spend a good
> initial chunk of your project emulating Paul's approach to measuring
> and improving test coverage (though I don't know how your GSoC mentors
> feel about that).

Just adding to the points mentioned by Christian.

I had initially planned to first improve test coverage and then start
with function conversion as I mentioned in my introductory mail[1]. I
also pointed out that I did some work searching about the tools to
test coverage (kcov as Matthieu) suggested and I found that it is not
that easy to set it up. Then Christian pointed it out (privately) that
I can do this afterwards too before the code is finally merged. And
also I am trying to see the test coverage as and when I am converting
each function.

[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/292308

Regards,
Pranit Bauva