From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: Git GSoC 2014 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:26:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87vbwi6toj.fsf@thomasrast.ch> References: <20140213091037.GA28927@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87bnya8z6q.fsf@thomasrast.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 14 08:27:13 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WEDB2-0005aN-K2 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:27:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751547AbaBNH1G (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:27:06 -0500 Received: from ip1.thgersdorf.net ([148.251.9.194]:45578 "EHLO mail.psioc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751145AbaBNH1F (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:27:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081F24D6510; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:27:03 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at psioc.net Received: from mail.psioc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.psioc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id sdDFdzvmmWTi; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:26:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux-1gf2.thomasrast.ch (46-126-8-85.dynamic.hispeed.ch [46.126.8.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBD314D64BD; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:26:52 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:50:36 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> Downside: not listing "code merged" as a goal may not make the project >> as shiny, neither for Git nor for the student. > > I'd actually view that as an upside. This sounds like a good first > step for a feasibility study that is really necessary. > > I wonder why the handling of storage corruption and replacement > could be left broken, though. Is that because libgit2 has known > breakages in these areas, or is there some other reason? It's because I don't know enough about what libgit2's state is, and I wanted to keep the scope limited. Naturally, the next step would then be to implement the lacking functionality (if any) in libgit2 so that the test suite passes. I just don't know if that's trivial, or something for the "if we have time" section of the project, or too much work. (I did do a quick "can we reasonably link against libgit2" test where I gave git-cat-file a --libgit2 option that loads blobs with libgit2. There are some name collisions in the git_config* identifiers that need to be resolved, but otherwise it seems entirely possible.) -- Thomas Rast tr@thomasrast.ch