Re: GSoC 2010: "Integrated Web Client for git" proposal

[Pavan Kumar Sunkara <pavan.sss1991@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 April 2010, Pavan Kumar Sunkara wrote:
>> 2010/4/19 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Pavan Kumar Sunkara wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I can agree that you would be able to learn Perl in a week.  I do not
>>> think however that you can become proficient in Perl (and neither in any
>>> other non-trivial programming language) in such short time.  The question
>>> remains if you can be proficient enough for the task in question...
>>
>> I can learn perl in 3 hours. Becoming proficient in perl is just
>> knowing about all the majorly used inbuilt functions and libraries.
>> Coming to the concepts of programming, I already know a lot about it
>> along with data structures and algortihms. So you need not doubt me on
>> this.
>
> You can (probably) learn Perl *syntax* in 3 hours.  You perhaps can
> learn to start to write clean, idiomatic Perl within a week, provided
> that you find good books (like "Higher-Order Perl", which can be found
> at http://hop.perl.plover.com/book/, or other Perl books from O'Reilly).
> Be proficient in Perl in that short time?  I don't think so.
>
> I guess that you can learn enough Perl for this project, but I'd really
> prefer for you to be proficient in Perl already...

It's your choice. All I can say is learning perl won't be a
obstruction to do this project.

>>>
>>> Yes, I found it in later parts of proposal, but don't you think that
>>> this goal of this project should be stated upfront, so that one can
>>> know what this project is to be about from project description itself?
>>
>> I thought it should be described later in the "Describe your project
>> in more detail" section.  So, I didn't go into details here.
>
> Nevetheless it is a place to describe *specific* goal of project here,
> in one to two sentences.  No marketing buzzwords here :-PPP

:-)

>>>
>>> I guess (please correct me if I am wrong) that lib/ would contain modules
>>> *required* by gitweb, and modules/ would contain *optional* modules
>>> needed for extra functionality (for extra features).
>>
>> You are half correct.
>> lib/ contains modules *required* by gitweb
>> modules/ contains actions *performed* in gitweb like commitlog,
>> snapshot etc.. (write actions too)
>>
>> Maybe I will rename it to actions/ to not to be confused.
>
> I don't understand why actions are not to be in lib/, like e.g. SVN::Web
> (http://p3rl.org/SVN::Web) has SVN::Web::Blame module for 'blame' action?
> Although I am not sure if SVN::Web is a good example of coding practices
> and code organization.

I did so to make them clearly distinct and easily to be maintain and
modify later.

>>>
>>> If gitweb is configured to scan for repositories, adding existing git
>>> repository to gitweb doesn't make sense.  If gitweb is configured to
>>> use static file with list of repositories, of course it would make
>>> sense... but then the question is how would one specify location of
>>> a new repository to add.
>>
>> How about like this ?
>> We will have a static file with list of projects. All the repositories
>> in scan path will be added to this list. Then we will also have an
>> option to add an existing repository which can be done when the user
>> specifies a relative or full path to the repository.
>
> O.K. that is a good idea: make gitweb scan for repositories, and present
> user with the list of them to add to static list of visible projects
> (repositories).

ok.

>>>
>>> Well, unless there would be time for it after you finish all other work,
>>> but it is a bit unlikely.
>>
>> I don't think so. I would like to constantly contribute to gitweb.
>
> I'm sorry, we seem to have a bit of misunderstanding here.  What I meant
> that this should be in the "optional" part of GSoC project, so it would
> be worked on during GSoC only after everything else is done.  Because the
> scope of this project is quite wide, I though it unlikely to have time
> left at the end of GSoC after finishing all other more important features.
>
> I did not mean to say that you would be unlikely to contribute after GSoC
> finishes.

ok. I can include it is an option part of GSoC.

Thanks
-pavan