Web lists-archives.com

Re: Questions on GSoC 2019 Ideas

On 03/03, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:09 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm not very familiar with what's required here, but reading the above
> > makes me think it's likely too much for a GSoC project.  I think I'd
> > be happy with a project that declares removing the global variables as
> > the main goal, and adding parallelism as a potential bonus.
> >
> > I'm a bit wary of a too large proposal here, as we've historically
> > overestimated what kind of project is achievable over a summer (I've
> > been there myself, as my GSoC project was also more than I was able to
> > do in a summer :)).  I'd rather have a project whose goal is rather
> > small and can be expanded later, than having something that could
> > potentially take more than 3 months, where the student (or their
> > mentors) have to finish it after GSoC.
> This is why I'm not involved in GSoC. I often mis-estimate the size of
> work (and yes I would still like your tree-based index format in,
> can't remember why it never made it).

So do I, and that's why I'd like to err on the side of having smaller
projects :)

I think the main reason the tree-based index format never made it is
that the in-core APIs were not set up to make use of the new index
format.  I'm also still interested in getting it in, but I haven't
found the time for looking at making the index code pluggable yet.  It
would probably take a similar refactoring as with the refs code to get
this done.

All that said, GSoC was still a great experience for me, and I got to
learn a ton over the summer.  But I did feel like I let the people
that invested a lot of time in the project as well down a bit, by not
being able to finishing the project.  And having the feeling of
accomplishment of actually finishing a project would definitely have
been nice to have as well.  So for those reasons I think it would be
better for students to take on smaller projects.

> So yeah if you find removing global variables (which essentially
> identifies shared states, a prerequisite for any parallel work)
> reasonable for GSoC, I'd say go for it.
> Be also aware that this kind of refactoring work could result in lots
> of patches and it takes time to get them merged, if your GSoC goal is
> to get merged.
> -- 
> Duy