Re: Git in GSoC 2025

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Jan 30, 2025, 10:56 UTC
Message-ID: <Z5ta1wJ1NQ1EdLJD@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0s1nOr5EDx0MW=u7grpmywRTpGzx0v_d4PSjmgJ0ZBbQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 09:37:47AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:32 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> > This one doesn't feel like a sensible addition to me as it is
> > open-ended.
> >
> > >   - Replace a run_command*() call by direct calls to C functions
> >
> > This one, too.
> 
> We could put those two in a section for projects that are a bit larger
> than microprojects though. It might help those who have already worked
> on a microproject and want to do something a bit more involved.
> 
> It happens more and more often that people who want to apply to the
> GSoC or Outreachy start getting involved early, which is nice. They
> often have time, after their microproject and before working on their
> application, to work on something a bit more involved. So it would be
> nice if they could easily find something else to work on like those
> two ideas and others similar to them.

The issue I have with these is less about the project size, but more about them not being clearly defined. There is no easy way to identify sites that can be adapted, and neither is there a common understanding in the project that this is even something we want to do. So personally I'd leave them out of a first iteration so that we only have a set of "trivial" projects that are commonly accepted, which allows us to focus on the form of the new document instead of bikeshedding the proposed projects.

Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss adding these projects at all. But I'd rather think that should be left for another iteration so that we can discuss their scope and merit more in depth.

Patrick