From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654B0C00A89 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AAE2225E for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UOXr60+L" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725968AbgKBSfd (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:35:33 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59438 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725831AbgKBSfc (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:35:32 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 763C2C0617A6 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:35:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id j5so7251655plk.7 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:35:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8lnUvANkvXszBa83sR027PaeVwfzPYpi+r5dHC123OE=; b=UOXr60+LIv61HGqOIReVFwzNJOUibxfE/26DnQ0rPBlOxN+hlMf+X87n2g/u6LYdJ7 K3KlL6WFyGjLY4X8fKEp2bTj3AzRVkWy1y4Yr+YMY5D22cF3GSkqVNeTcu4uXPVX7diV bA/n/yIxugmaLTBdjSGmRaeDyK74vebtmnPR7gxaFpxYMBhcuSrxKDHvIxeYOLXm/KrC 029sQUSVoHEds2LGUg5Ra+XHQhcnMCt2KlXsZ0HDuvoF9uHzhXmQO5DuuOK8Aoqz7yw5 mB2v6zhMyP/DRc0TKYHVEKgtMHPnrKaamR7xKE7yW2gf8wsFWxRVUZn88Nn3KAsqK2Nm 0OOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8lnUvANkvXszBa83sR027PaeVwfzPYpi+r5dHC123OE=; b=eHbV2SDIktkYgabjj0zwSH8oBRbcYSmy76GPOhXV06kh1WqTLQZl725+jaxGx3peDY WUcNJKbLjobwl5yyPHaY05I0HOKD7761vb+VYDGnzJBGxlggxn17NacHh5se4B0v5mvi 9MXir3VSivj21s2mV2d0fpJZDQ3WI9nmPm+LVe1ChNhkqMTqPBFRkl4Vw7hdMQvIB7m4 r2pLVcLUbxHnlVUDzkN93IuwnEyKTZfK+9XVlUX/UDsev2lpBR3FyTgiYPQdvMsG5iF+ 9dGktc5eau3gQHevIwfbcsFzT71+CRVRZjYRGTggY0wSbCrjcRg3PC6D/2Y7cv/JgaTi tCaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Um+n9Hi+Lj4bxZvhmNPjcCr/P1yH8Cfao9gAM2JA0gdT/zvmX QeubY9whggvByhQuVqfhkguWN7aGMko= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsQvywO+z/8o/mKc/y7UL1Ygr43x3bUw31I3f0tNRLsw3I7oFHFmID8uEkeubCQ2gT9l25oA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8608:b029:d4:c459:f1e8 with SMTP id f8-20020a1709028608b02900d4c459f1e8mr21695286plo.36.1604342131753; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.208.42] ([49.205.87.94]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gc17sm168085pjb.47.2020.11.02.10.35.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:35:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Outreachy][Proposal] Accelerate rename detection and the range-diff To: Elijah Newren Cc: Sangeeta NB , Christian Couder , Git List References: <6dfa865d-cb32-47fa-b9b4-fe3901a0cf63@gmail.com> From: Kaartic Sivaraam Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:05:29 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Elijah, On 01/11/20 2:01 am, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:02 AM Kaartic Sivaraam > wrote: >> >> Thanks for the detailed concerns. Some thoughts: >> >> - Given that a major portion of the project would be to evaluate >> various algorithms and identifying the most suitable one, I believe >> implementation conflict shouldn't be a problem as it's expected to >> start only by late-January. Also, as Christian pointed out elsewhere >> it might be a good learning experience. > > "late-January" _might_ be okay, but I'm worried that relying on > optimistic timelines is a bad idea. However, if the primary purpose > is a good learning experience, or if the primary purpose is to > evaluate different algorithms (i.e. we're not relying on the timelines > to avoid conflict, it's just a bonus if they don't), then sure, no > problem there. > Yeah. I believe a good part of this project would be evaluating the various algorithms. Implementation would be a part of it, sure. I don't think it would be too time sensitive, though. So, I hope we can work through the timelines as the project and your work progress. >> - I do have a concern about one thing, though. For evaluating the >> algorithm in the context of Git, we might need to do some experimental >> implementations to get some metrics which would serve as the data that >> we could use to identify the optimal algorithm. I'm wondering whether >> your planned changes might affect that. In the sense that, is there a >> chance for the evaluation to become obsolete as a consequence of those >> changes? If yes, what could we do to overcome that? Any thoughts on >> this would be helpful. > > That is certainly a possibility, yes. One way to address that concern > is for me to freeze some branch (likely some version that I deploy > internally at $DAYJOB for testing), and for you to build on that. If > all the new merge backend code gets reviewed and upstreamed fast > enough, and the areas you depend on don't change too drastically based > on reviewer comments, then building on merge-ort creates no > impediments for the Outreachy project to get upstreamed at the normal > time. Thanks. That does sound like a good way to overcome that problem. We can discuss more about that once the intern is selected and their internship period begins. > I can understand, though, if that plan seems worrisome due to > worries about how fast the new backend will be upstreamed or how much > it needs to change in the process; that is, after all, why I raised my > concerns in the first place. > Which indeed is very helpful for planning the project. Thanks for that! Its pretty clear now that closely following your work and adapting the timeline accordingly as time progresses is a part of the project. That might indeed be an interesting experience in and of itself for the intern who would be working on this project. -- Sivaraam