From: Jialong Wang <jerrywang183@yahoo.com>
To: karthik.188@gmail.com
Cc: Jialong Wang <jerrywang183@yahoo.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GSoC] Proposal draft: Improve the new git repo command
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:53:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260318125303.88730-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20260318125303.88730-1-jerrywang183.ref@yahoo.com
Hi Karthik,
I wanted to send a brief follow-up on my proposal draft for the
"Improve the new git repo command" project.
Since sending the revised draft, I have continued working on small Git
patches to get more comfortable with the codebase and with the mailing
list workflow. In particular, I sent/rerolled:
- an apply.c series on input-location reporting, starting from
"apply: report the location of corrupt patches" and then extending it
to header parsing errors and binary/garbage patch errors, which I
rerolled as a single v4 0/3 series after review feedback
- "t2203: avoid suppressing git status exit code"
- "object-name: turn INTERPRET_BRANCH_* constants into enum values"
Working through these patches helped sharpen how I think about the repo
project's scope.
My current understanding is that the project should probably not try to
turn "git repo info" into a large catch-all for every possible
repository path/value right away. Instead, the core scope should be to
define and land a coherent initial set of path-oriented values that are
already grounded in existing repository setup / rev-parse style
plumbing, and to do that as a sequence of small self-contained patches,
each with its own tests and documentation updates.
For testing, I now expect the main command-level coverage to live in
t/t1900-repo-info.sh, while reusing patterns from existing rev-parse and
repository setup tests where the semantics overlap.
This also changed how I think about the timeline: I would prefer to keep
the initial milestones focused on a small useful subset with a clear
interface, and only treat broader expansion and cleanups as follow-up
work once the main direction is in good shape.
If you have time, I would really appreciate any feedback on whether this
updated framing is closer to the direction you had in mind.
Thanks,
Jialong
next parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-18 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260318125303.88730-1-jerrywang183.ref@yahoo.com>
2026-03-18 12:53 ` Jialong Wang [this message]
[not found] <9fc1d23fbc7d46349ac01314fbfc06eb.gsoc-proposal-draft-jerrywang183.ref@yahoo.com>
2026-03-16 11:47 ` [GSoC] Proposal draft: Improve the new git repo command Jialong Wang
2026-03-16 20:59 ` Karthik Nayak
2026-03-17 0:28 ` Jialong Wang
2026-03-16 21:05 ` Jialong Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260318125303.88730-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com \
--to=jerrywang183@yahoo.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox