GSoC Proposal Analysis/Brain Dump

[Benoit Boissinot]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Peter Arrenbrecht
<peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Benoit Boissinot <bboissin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Bastian Doetsch
>> <bastian.doetsch at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.04.2010 um 18:31 schrieb Benoit Boissinot:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Benoit Boissinot <bboissin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Augie Fackler <durin42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there discussion needed on the 4 accepted students?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently they rank in the following way:
>>>>>>> 1       Improved Changeset Discovery    Mark Determann
>>>>>>> 2       hgwebdir rewrite                Alexandru Totolici
>>>>>>> 3       Narrow Cloning                  Rafael Goncalves Martins
>>>>>>> 4       Porting Mercurial to Python 3   Renato Cunha
>>>>>>> 5       Parent Delta                    Pradeepkumar Gayam
>>>>>>> 5       Shallow Cloning in Mercurial    Vishakh Harikumar
>>>>>>> (the others are negative)
>>>>>>
>>
>> With two potential duplicates, it is best to assign mentors to parent
>> delta and shallow cloning.
>> Augie is in the process of contacting the other org to resolve the duplication.
>
> Do we really want to take on students just to fill the slots, even if
> we're not really convinced by them?

I personally don't see anything more convincing on py3k rather than
the two other. And at least for shallow cloning, he hangs around on
IRC, and did some patches (to glog).

Otherwise we can fill only one slot too.
I have the impression we didn't make much effort engaging with the
students (after and before the submissions).

regards,

Benoit