From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: GSoC 2016: applications open, deadline = Fri, 19/2 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:56:52 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20160212130446.GB10858@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160222214246.GE15595@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Matthieu Moy , Duy Nguyen , git , Christian Couder , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 22 22:57:02 2016 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 1aXyTT-0000rt-W0 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:57:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755665AbcBVV44 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:56:56 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:64999 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753138AbcBVV4z (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:56:55 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F31147508; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:56:54 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=A3go81Vyac/rcsXTLp/S3hL0CDE=; b=nD0rnh 4qws/ouw6MhQ9+seSqUODjzxwcoWRvCbMluiotkVve8Aw3hvXhgI1vhNB6UbypYa tKECjHhVBF6L3yFKYb49FXOea5E/B28qsxvDrydAIi0W01fG2LjJTpvwUNsLIIMX 7Q0d38NA3qgaQfAh8uDluBSKOeRrY0lSZjB8s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WCk4TjDIEGCKYum7y0MIVfzRKyHT0umc I9bgu3X3i2DgQKL/qg2oyMH9HQJzLc87ZHbV80IDHkjXCVKETkmjviThtkiWuM6F 4qkO9i/vaQQx6zMPO96Iypf5quhACKWuJ/5ad6sMtQhST48bK/VazvIyJDXhUm7a J1YXg2eyONQ= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2519E47507; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.1.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96A7447506; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:56:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20160222214246.GE15595@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:42:46 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2F13822A-D9AF-11E5-B187-79226BB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > I agree that there are a lot of different ways to resolve each instance, > and it will vary from case to case. I think the original point of a > microproject was to do something really easy and not contentious, so > that the student could get familiar with all of the other parts of the > cycle: writing a commit message, formatting the patch, posting to the > list, etc. I had an impression that Micros are also used as an aptitude test, and one important trait we want to see in a potential developer is how well s/he interacts with others in such a discussion. So "easy and not contentious" might not be a very good criteria. I dunno. > It seems like this has a high chance of frustrating students as they get > embroiled in back-and-forth review. I dunno. Maybe it should be marked > with a star as a "challenge" microproject. :)