Re: Git GSoC 2014

From: Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch>
Date: Feb 14, 2014, 07:26 UTC
Message-ID: <87vbwi6toj.fsf@thomasrast.ch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk3cyk4oz.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch> writes:
>
>> Downside: not listing "code merged" as a goal may not make the project
>> as shiny, neither for Git nor for the student.
>
> I'd actually view that as an upside. This sounds like a good first
> step for a feasibility study that is really necessary.
>
> I wonder why the handling of storage corruption and replacement
> could be left broken, though. Is that because libgit2 has known
> breakages in these areas, or is there some other reason?

It's because I don't know enough about what libgit2's state is, and I wanted to keep the scope limited. Naturally, the next step would then be to implement the lacking functionality (if any) in libgit2 so that the test suite passes. I just don't know if that's trivial, or something for the "if we have time" section of the project, or too much work.

(I did do a quick "can we reasonably link against libgit2" test where I gave git-cat-file a --libgit2 option that loads blobs with libgit2. There are some name collisions in the git_config* identifiers that need to be resolved, but otherwise it seems entirely possible.)

-- 
Thomas Rast
tr@thomasrast.ch