Re: Contributor Summit Topics and Logistics

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 22 2019, Jeff King wrote:

> There's no set agenda; we'll decide what to discuss that day. But if
> anybody would like to mention topics they are interested in (whether you
> want to present on them, or just have an open discussion), please do so
> here. A little advance notice can help people prepare more for the
> discussions.

This is definitely a "little" advance seeing as it's tomorrow morning.

> Even if you're not coming, please feel free to suggest topics (but bonus
> points if you convince somebody who _is_ coming to lead the session).

Things I'd be interested in hearing / talking about about that haven't
yet been mentioned.

These are in descending order of how interesting I think these will be
to a general audience, to the point where maybe only I care about the
bottom of this list...

* "Big repos". We had discussions about this in years past. It's a very
  spawly and vague topic. Do we mean big history, big blobs, big (in
  size/depth/width) checkouts etc?

  But regardless, many of us deal with this in one way or another, and
  it would be good to have a top-level overview of how the various
  solutions to this that are being integrated into git.git are doing /
  what people see on the horizon for scalabiltiy.

* "Structured remote logging". We had an RFC spec for turning our trace
  format into something more structural with a way to send it to a
  remote server. There were both implementation & privacy concernse,
  last time at least a couple of users of git reported having in-house
  patches for this (not ready for upstream). Where are we on this now?

* "commit graph by default". I had this on my list, but Derrick Stolee
  sent out a much better summary:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/6d0dc2a2-120c-0d42-1910-14ffed7adaf1@gmail.com/

* I've been using (but haven't yet re-rolled) my "relative SHA-1
  abbreviation" series
  (https://public-inbox.org/git/20180608224136.20220-1-avarab@gmail.com/)

  I'm interested in seeing if anyone else is interested in this, and
  particularly what the overlap (if any) is between this & midx.

* "Making strict fsck checks on clone the default". I worked a bit on
  this in this last year in between a couple of security issues that
  needed fsck checks. Has caveats etc., but would give users some more
  protections.

* "The CI I set up for git on the GCC Compile Farm". Can be folded into
  a general "state of git.git CI" topic:
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git-ci/pipelines

* If people care about making the TAP mode in our test suite mandatory
  (i.e. require "prove" or a tool like it). See
  https://public-inbox.org/git/87zhrj2n2l.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/