{"thread":{"id":"9114","subject":"GSoC status report","startedAt":"2007-07-20T08:24:34Z","lastAt":"2007-07-21T01:24:01Z","messageCount":5,"participants":["Jakub Narebski","Shawn O. Pearce","Johannes Schindelin"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"47940","messageId":"200707201024.35605.jnareb@gmail.com","threadId":"9114","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"GSoC status report","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-07-20T08:24:34Z","receivedAt":"2007-07-20T08:24:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"How it goes with Google Summer of Code git projects:\nbuiltinification, libification and GitTorrent?\n\nI can see that builtinification (and perhaps libification) goes quite \nwell; what about GitTorrent project? Does anybody know how Mono SoC \nproject: \"Managed C# git implementation\" goes?\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\n"},{"id":"47942","messageId":"20070720083401.GQ32566@spearce.org","threadId":"9114","inReplyTo":"200707201024.35605.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: GSoC status report","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-07-20T08:34:01Z","receivedAt":"2007-07-20T08:34:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:\n> How it goes with Google Summer of Code git projects:\n> builtinification,\n\nCarlos is making good progress, he's had a few versions of git-tag\nposted, and incorporated feedback into it.  Hopefully we'll see that\nfinialize and merge into Junio's tree in the not-too-distant future.\n\n> libification\n\nLuiz and I have have been working mostly off-list on this, as we\nwanted to get something solid that the list can actually look at\nand comment on, rather than just speculate.  Luiz has something he's\njust about ready to share with us, and may post about it next week.\nI don't want to steal his thunder, so I'm staying quiet on the\ntopic for now.  ;-)\n\n> and GitTorrent?\n\nUnfortuantely this isn't a project under GSoC anymore.  The student\ninvolved had some issues with being able to get his paperwork\ncompleted for Google and was not able to participate this summer.\nI have not heard much more than that.\n \n> I can see that builtinification (and perhaps libification) goes quite \n> well; what about GitTorrent project? Does anybody know how Mono SoC \n> project: \"Managed C# git implementation\" goes?\n\nI haven't heard anything on it, or looked into it since the start.\nI did reach out to both the student and Miguel, and got responses\nback from them at that time, but have not heard anything since.\nA Google search turned up the Mono GSoC status update mailing list,\nwhich has weekly posts from a bunch of other Mono related projects,\nbut none about the C# Git implementation.  I'm suspecting maybe it\nis dead.\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"},{"id":"47953","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0707201118550.14781@racer.site","threadId":"9114","inReplyTo":"200707201024.35605.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: GSoC status report","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-07-20T10:37:22Z","receivedAt":"2007-07-20T10:37:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n\n> How it goes with Google Summer of Code git projects:\n> builtinification, libification and GitTorrent?\n\nFor my part, I am very pleased with the progress Carlos is making with \nbuiltinification.  He is quite familiar with the source code by now, and \nwith the style We Do Things Here(tm).  Even though _he_ thinks the \nprogress is slow, I do not.  The first phase was to get acquainted with \nthe code, and with the techniques to convert shell code into C.\n\nAnd since Kristian joined into the builtinification process, and since \nCarlos and Kristian are working together quite nicely, I am even more \nhappy.\n\nFWIW this is the list of scripts that I would like to see converted by the \nend of the year (feel free to object), ordered by their size:\n\nverify-tag, reset, repack, tag, checkout, rebase, bisect, \nrebase--interactive, am, commit.\n\nIt looks like 'tag' and 'commit' are pretty near to completion, with 'tag' \nalready being in the 'next' branch, and verify-tag will probably follow \nsoon.\n\nThe list left out two clusters: 'fetch' related scripts (pull, ls-remote, \nparse-remote, fetch, clone) and 'merge' related scripts (merge-ours, \nmerge-resolve, merge-stupid, merge-octopus, merge)¹.\n\nJulian and Daniel are working on the fetch front, and the progress is \nawesome.  I especially like the abstraction we have now, so that new \ntransports are much easier to implement.  I am even tempted to have a go \nat 'pushing' to bundles.\n\nSeems like I got the 4 people I wished for the builtin project, in a way \n;-)\n\nIMHO 'stash', 'submodule' and 'filter-branch'² are not yet ready to be \nmade builtin.\n\nAs for the merge stuff, I consider it too soon, too, especially since \n\"git-merge\" is a critical part of core Git _and_ quite long (even if the \nsame arguments would apply to 'commit', too, but Kristian is already at \nwork ;-)\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\nFootnote 1: I left out merge-one-file, since I have an (untested) builtin \nin my tree.  So there is not really much work to do there, I only have to \nfind some time to research how to test this script properly.\n\nFootnote 2: Sven is working on rewrite-commits, which is somewhat more \nlimited than filter-branch ATM, though faster.  As Junio suggested, we can \nalways consider using rewrite-commits as a fast backend to filter-branch, \nonce both rewrite-commits and filter-branch stabilised."},{"id":"48000","messageId":"200707210312.11745.jnareb@gmail.com","threadId":"9114","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0707201118550.14781@racer.site","subject":"Re: GSoC status report","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-07-21T01:12:10Z","receivedAt":"2007-07-21T01:12:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> FWIW this is the list of scripts that I would like to see converted by the \n> end of the year (feel free to object), ordered by their size:\n> \n> verify-tag, reset, repack, tag, checkout, rebase, bisect, \n> rebase--interactive, am, commit.\n\nI thought that verify-tag would be put into git-tag, with git-verify-tag\nbeing alias to \"git tag --verify\" or something like that.\n\nWhat about git-revert and git-cherry-pick (it is one script)? Or are you\nsimply concentrating on the tools you need most in common workflow?\n\n\nThanks for the reply\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\n"},{"id":"48001","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0707210223400.14781@racer.site","threadId":"9114","inReplyTo":"200707210312.11745.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: GSoC status report","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-07-21T01:24:01Z","receivedAt":"2007-07-21T01:24:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > FWIW this is the list of scripts that I would like to see converted by the \n> > end of the year (feel free to object), ordered by their size:\n> > \n> > verify-tag, reset, repack, tag, checkout, rebase, bisect, \n> > rebase--interactive, am, commit.\n> \n> I thought that verify-tag would be put into git-tag, with git-verify-tag\n> being alias to \"git tag --verify\" or something like that.\n> \n> What about git-revert and git-cherry-pick (it is one script)? Or are you\n> simply concentrating on the tools you need most in common workflow?\n\nThey are builtins since v1.5.1~170^2~2.\n\nHth,\nDscho\n"}]}