From: Pavan Kumar Sunkara Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 05:42:01 GMT Subject: Re: GSoC 2010: "Integrated Web Client for git" proposal Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201004230727.52212.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Christian Couder wrote: > On Wednesday 21 April 2010 22:49:02 Pavan Kumar Sunkara wrote: >> 1.What is the goal of your project? >> The project goal is to try and implement write functionalities into gitweb >> to go along with it's browsing functionalities. Another goal is to split >> gitweb Perl script and reorganize its structure. I would like to split the >> gitweb script in such a way that, in the future others will be able to >> develop more functionalities for gitweb (let it be 'read' or 'write' >> actions) with the help of the framework like structure of the new gitweb. >> >> 'read' means browsing through the code and repository >> 'write' means working on the code and repository. >> >> I will be describing about them detailedly in the later parts of the >> proposal. > > Perhaps this sentence could be worded like this: > > "I will describe in detail the read and write actions in the later part of the > proposal." > >> 2.How would you measure its success or failure? >> There are two parameters which would majorly determine the success or >> failure of the project. >> >>    * Splitting gitweb such that there should be no problem with the >> installation of gitweb across cross servers and cross systems. >>    * Working with new addition to gitweb should be as easy as working with >> other git GUIs (git commit tools) >>    * User friendly graphical interface with smart UI design >> >> 3.Describe your project in more detail. >> I would like to split the currently 6800 long piece of code in >> gitweb.plperl script into small files which will result in better >> readability, >> maintainability and modifiability. The file structure of the new gitweb is >> given below and I will explain the working after it. >> >> (From now on, I would like to call the actions of gitweb as modules of >> gitweb) > > Perhaps it would be better to state that in the end each action will have its > own Perl module. Thanks. As I said before, Sorry for my grammar. > Though I agree with Petr that first you should probably just shuffle around all > the utility routines in one module and develop write actions in another module > that uses the first one. > > Thanks, > Christian. > > Yeah, I am planning to do that. :-) Thanks -pavan