Re: [PATCH] Add ideas for GSoC 2024

[Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>]

Hi Patrick amd Christian,


On 6 February 2024 1:43:02 pm IST, Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>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:
>
>> 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.

Makes sense.  I suppose we need to capture the distinction more clearly in the ideas page.

I've tweaked the doc for the same. Do check it out and feel free to suggest any corrections.

Ideas page: https://git.github.io/SoC-2024-Ideas/

>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.
>

Indeed. We must make sure to communicate this to selected contributors if we end up choosing two of them for the unit test migration projects.

On a related note, I think I could help as a co-mentor the non-reftable unit tests migration project if we don't find any other willing volunteer. :-) 

I'm hoping I should be of some help on guiding the contributor as a co-mentor. Feel free to let me correct me if I might potentially lack required knowledge.

>> > 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 for the feedback. Included both of these links in relevant ideas too. Feel free to cross-check them!

-- 
Sivaraam

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.