On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 04:51:49PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 01:03:17PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > > Do we have interested mentors for the next round of Outreachy? > > > > > > The deadline for Git to apply to the program is September 5th. The > > > deadline for mentors to have submitted project descriptions is September > > > 24th. Intern applications would start on October 1st. > > > > > > If there are mentors who want to participate, I can handle the project > > > application and can start asking around for funding. > > > > I probably should have replied earlier, but if Git has applied to the > > program, feel free to include me as a mentor. > > Great! See my followup here: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20190904194114.GA31398@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Prospective mentors need to sign up on that site, and should propose a > project they'd be willing to mentor. > > > There was a discussion about mentors/co-mentors possibly working in a > > part of a codebase that they are not familiar with [1] - firstly, I > > think that's possible and even likely for most of us. :-) If any > > question arises, maybe it would be sufficient for the mentors to just > > help formulate the question (or pose the question themselves) to the > > mailing list. If "[Outreachy]" appears in the subject, I'll make it a > > higher priority for myself to answer those. > > I do think it's OK for mentors to not be intimately familiar with the > part of the code that is being touched, as long as the project is simple > enough that they can pick up the technical details easily as-needed. A > lot of what mentors will help mentees with is the overall process (both > Git-specific parts, but also more general development issues). But I > think the proposed projects do need to be feasible. > > I'm happy to discuss possible projects if anybody has an idea but isn't > sure how to develop it into a proposal. Hi Peff, Jonathan Tan, Jonathan Nieder, Josh Steadmon and I met on Friday to talk about projects and we came up with a trimmed list; not sure what more needs to be done to make them into fully-fledged proposals. For starter microprojects, we came up with: - cleanup a test script (although we need to identify particularly which ones and what counts as "clean") - moving doc from documentation/technical/api-* to comments in the appropriate header instead - teach a command which currently handles its own argv how to use parse-options instead - add a user.timezone option which Git can use if present rather than checking system local time For the longer projects, we came up with a few more: - find places where we can pass in the_repository as arg instead of using global the_repository - convert sh/pl commands to C, including: - git-submodules.sh - git-bisect.sh - rebase --preserve-merges - add -i (We were afraid this might be too boring, though.) - reduce/eliminate use of fetch_if_missing global - create a better difftool/mergetool for format of choice (this one ends up existing outside of the Git codebase, but still may be pretty adjacent and big impact) - training wheels/intro/tutorial mode? (We thought it may be useful to make available a very basic "I just want to make a single PR and not learn graph theory" mode, toggled by config switch) - "did you mean?" for common use cases, e.g. commit with a dirty working tree and no staged files - either offer a hint or offer a prompt to continue ("Stage changed files and commit? [Y/n]") - new `git partial-clone` command to interactively set a filter, configure other partial clone settings - add progress bars in various situations - add a TUI to deal more easily with the mailing list. Jonathan Tan has a strong idea of what this TUI would do... This one would also end up external but adjacent to the Git codebase. - try and make progress towards running many tests from a single test file in parallel - maybe this is too big, I'm not sure if we know how many of our tests are order-dependent within a file for now... It might make sense to only focus on scoping the ones we feel most interested in. We came up with a pretty big list because we had some other programs in mind, so I suppose it's not necessary to develop all of them for this program. - Emily
