GSoC Proposal Analysis/Brain Dump

[Augie Fackler]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Benoit Boissinot wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Peter Arrenbrecht
> <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Benoit Boissinot  
>> <bboissin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> However, shallow cloning is really hard. I wouldn't take this project
>> on without an exceptional seeming student.
>
> I thought we not only focus on the project, but the way the student
> integrates the community and become a part of it.
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> This may be so. My experience from the last years, however, tells me
>> we should not woo students too much. We only want properly
>> self-motivated and able students. Otherwise the danger of wasting a
>> lot of time is just too high for me.
>
> Mark (our top student) won't be able to participate on gsoc (he said
> it in his application and on irc),

Ugh. This isn't our year.

> and now melange marks all our top 4
> application as duplicates...

That's a side effect of the duplication detection run. It's back to  
the same state as yesterday now.

Should we take just the py3k student and give the other three slots  
back? Or pick up the shallow clones student as a potential risky option?

>
> Benoit
>
>> -parren
>>