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

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

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Christian Couder
<chriscool@tuxfamily.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 April 2010 22:49:02 Pavan Kumar Sunkara wrote:
>> 1.What is the goal of your project?
>> The project goal is to try and implement write functionalities into gitweb
>> to go along with it's browsing functionalities. Another goal is to split
>> gitweb Perl script and reorganize its structure. I would like to split the
>> gitweb script in such a way that, in the future others will be able to
>> develop more functionalities for gitweb (let it be 'read' or 'write'
>> actions) with the help of the framework like structure of the new gitweb.
>>
>> 'read' means browsing through the code and repository
>> 'write' means working on the code and repository.
>>
>> I will be describing about them detailedly in the later parts of the
>> proposal.
>
> Perhaps this sentence could be worded like this:
>
> "I will describe in detail the read and write actions in the later part of the
> proposal."
>
>> 2.How would you measure its success or failure?
>> There are two parameters which would majorly determine the success or
>> failure of the project.
>>
>>    * Splitting gitweb such that there should be no problem with the
>> installation of gitweb across cross servers and cross systems.
>>    * Working with new addition to gitweb should be as easy as working with
>> other git GUIs (git commit tools)
>>    * User friendly graphical interface with smart UI design
>>
>> 3.Describe your project in more detail.
>> I would like to split the currently 6800 long piece of code in
>> gitweb.plperl script into small files which will result in better
>> readability,
>> maintainability and modifiability. The file structure of the new gitweb is
>> given below and I will explain the working after it.
>>
>> (From now on, I would like to call the actions of gitweb as modules of
>> gitweb)
>
> Perhaps it would be better to state that in the end each action will have its
> own Perl module.

Thanks. As I said before, Sorry for my grammar.

> Though I agree with Petr that first you should probably just shuffle around all
> the utility routines in one module and develop write actions in another module
> that uses the first one.
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
>

Yeah, I am planning to do that. :-)

Thanks
-pavan