Re: [PATCH] Add ideas for GSoC 2024

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2928 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:25:31AM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> Hi Patrick, Christian and all,
> 
> On 05/02/24 22:13, Christian Couder wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for these ideas! I have applied your patch and pushed it.
> > 
> 
> Yeah. Thanks for sharing these great ideas! I've submitted the application
> using the new ideas page now as mentioned in the parent thread.
> 
> > > +### Convert reftable unit tests to use the unit testing framework
> > > +
> > > +The "reftable" unit tests in "t0032-reftable-unittest.sh"
> > > +predate the unit testing framework that was recently
> > > +introduced into Git. These tests should be converted to use
> > > +the new framework.
> > > +
> > > +See:
> > > +
> > > +  - this discussion <https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1692297001.git.steadmon@google.com/>
> > > +
> > > +Expected Project Size: 175 hours or 350 hours
> > > +
> > > +Difficulty: Low
> > 
> > "Difficulty: Low" might not be very accurate from the point of view of
> > contributors. I think it's always quite difficult to contribute
> > something significant to Git, and sometimes more than we expected.
> > 
> 
> 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.

> 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.

> > > +### Implement consistency checks for refs
> > > +
> >>
> >> [ ... snip ... ]
> >>
> > > +
> > > +  - https://lore.kernel.org/git/6cfee0e4-3285-4f18-91ff-d097da9de737@rd10.de/
> > > +  - https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1706601199.git.ps@pks.im/
> > > +
> >> [ .... snip ... ]
> > > +
> > > +### Implement support for reftables in "dumb" HTTP transport
> 
> 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.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]