Re: [PATCH] Add ideas for GSoC 2024

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:51 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:25:31AM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:

> > Makes sense. Also, I'm kind of cat-one-the-wall about whether it makes sense
> > to have two projects about the unit test migration effort itself. If we're
> > clear that both of them would not overlap, it should be fine. Otherwise, it
> > would be better to merge them as Patrick suggests.
>
> I don't quite mind either way. I think overall we have enough tests that
> can be converted even if both projects got picked up separately. And the
> reftable unit tests are a bit more involved than the other tests given
> that their coding style doesn't fit at all into the Git project. So it's
> not like they can just be copied over, they definitely need some special
> care.
>
> Also, the technical complexity of the "reftable" backend is rather high,
> which is another hurdle to take.
>
> Which overall makes me lean more towards keeping this as a separate
> project now that I think about it.

Ok, for me. If we have a contributor working on each of these 2
projects, we just need to be clear that the contributors should not
work together on the 2 projects as I think the GSoC forbids that.

> > That said, how helpful would it be to link the following doc in the unit
> > testing related ideas?
> >
> > https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/technical/unit-tests.txt
>
> Makes sense to me.

To me too.

> > Would it worth linking the reftable technical doc for the above ideas?
> >
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/reftable
> >
> > I could see it goes into a lot of detail. I'm just wondering if link to it
> > would help someone who's looking to learn about reftable.
>
> Definitely doesn't hurt.

I agree.

Thanks!