GSoC Proposal Analysis/Brain Dump

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Benoit Boissinot <bboissin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Peter Arrenbrecht
> <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Brodie Rao <brodie at bitheap.org> wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I'd like to see Peter's response to Vishakh's revised shallow cloning proposal and more feedback on the parent delta proposal.
>>
>> It looks much better this time. I'd say he has put a lot of effort
>> into the application by now. So, yes, why not risk it.
>
>
> The de-dup meeting is in a few hours. So far the following proposal
> are marked as accepted:
> - py3k
> - narrow cloning
> - parent delta
>
> and we would give one slot back. I asked for it to be given to PSF
> (where if we care we can chose between some projects: e.g. ipython,
> pip, idle for interactive learning, reST editor, but unless someone
> has a preference *and* replies shortly I said we didn't care).
>
> If you disagree about anything, now would be a good time.

Nothing except "Thank you" for pitching in. I'm on a business trip so
cannot find much time for GSoC right now.
-parren