From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Histogram diff, libgit2 enhancement, libgit2 => git merge (GSOC) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:25:43 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhbaxwswo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Pavel Raiskup" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 20 19:26:05 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1NKG-0001SJ-CR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:26:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752069Ab1CTSZy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:25:54 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:63972 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038Ab1CTSZx (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:25:53 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6F34A90; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:27:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=z0XVi6QZE5wtVrvwULjWbk4Rhm8=; b=xgSBWGDqipJLSg8EyiYF YWUjxLkpVybsUG78qMX+esckApVDyfZw4DQpTC0lIsyoHfvc7WK+W6lLhNoeFTfp qhm1ukgWfy5i5RIjrrVbXkat1A3XFSgnxy3Q9SrBAxvX5BsNhZyenI1QvH+PvPmS VFZYf5tYyMvzh4UNyUhpF2I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mKOkyW9ljj6/rnjjT2R4su7xE3ljwHN9FFiYgcH17iCCq4 3/LpJctPumkayA6ylS0Z50YWbOhlvXjWDy2ByaMETsYkgKuhowklPSnnJaxCReC9 0n6I2XdQb6hPy5G4vH57POz1Tjhva1sp6vaPuhBrRU6J2RqQMnQ6GwfUVC+ms= Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0134A8F; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 963CE4A8E; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:27:23 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B4D74F3E-531F-11E0-A56C-E8AB60295C12-77302942!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Pavel Raiskup" writes: > I have one theoretical question -- what if the benchmarking/study of > histogram diff leads to conclusion that this algorithm will not be > useful for upstream? Does it mean "fail" in terms of GSOC? Not necessarily. A negative result is often as valuable as a positive result. It will take a clearly good implementation to justify why a negative result is a success, though. If it is clear to the reviewers that the implementation is poorly done, the negative conclusion does not necessarily mean that use of the histogram algorithm is a bad approach---it would just mean the particular implementation that didn't implement it well was, and then the GSoC task may have to be marked as a failure. But otherwise, if the submission is done with the usual code quality we would expect from contributors and explained well in its log message (either positive or negative), I would say it should be considered a "success".