From: Pranit Bauva Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 06:59:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] bisect--helper: rewrite of check-term-format() Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hey Eric, Sorry for the late reply. I was on vacation. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Pranit Bauva wrote: >> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Pranit Bauva wrote: >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Pranit Bauva writes: >>>>> I completely missed your point and you want me to go the Eric Sunshine's way? >>>> >>>> I am neutral. >>>> >>>> When I read your response to Eric's "top down" suggestion, I didn't >>>> quite get much more than "I started going this way, and I do not >>>> want to change to the other direction.", which was what I had the >>>> most trouble with. If your justification for the approach to start >>>> from building a tiny bottom layer that will need to be dismantled >>>> soon and repeat that (which sounds somewhat wasteful) were more >>>> convincing, I may have felt differently. >>> >>> Sorry if it seemed that "I have done quite some work and I don't want >>> to scrape it off and redo everything". This isn't a case for me. I >>> think of this as just a small part in the process of learning and my >>> efforts would be completely wasted as I can still reuse the methods I >> >> efforts would **not** be completely wasted >> >>> wrote. This is still open for a "philosophical" discussion. I am >>> assuming 1e1ea69fa4e is how Eric is suggesting. > > Speaking of 1e1ea69 (pull: implement skeletal builtin pull, > 2015-06-14), one of the (numerous) things Paul Tan did which impressed > me was to formally measure test suite coverage of the commands he was > converting to C, and then improve coverage where it was lacking. That > approach increases confidence in the conversion far more than fallible > human reviews do. > > Setting aside the top-down vs. bottom-up discussion, as a reviewer > (and user) I'd be far more interested in seeing you spend a good > initial chunk of your project emulating Paul's approach to measuring > and improving test coverage (though I don't know how your GSoC mentors > feel about that). Just adding to the points mentioned by Christian. I had initially planned to first improve test coverage and then start with function conversion as I mentioned in my introductory mail[1]. I also pointed out that I did some work searching about the tools to test coverage (kcov as Matthieu) suggested and I found that it is not that easy to set it up. Then Christian pointed it out (privately) that I can do this afterwards too before the code is finally merged. And also I am trying to see the test coverage as and when I am converting each function. [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/292308 Regards, Pranit Bauva