-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/22/2015 11:01 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 04/22/2015 06:58 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: >> On 04/22/2015 10:34 AM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: >>> Neither. Merely stating that originally they were competing for >>> one slot and we evaluated the proposals with the baseline of >>> one idea. >> >>> Now that the project proposal scope is being reviewed and >>> extended, they need to put up new versions of their scope of >>> work. Either on Melange or their code repo. This will ensure >>> that changes in expectations are documented and considered >>> during evaluation. On 22 Apr 2015 22:04, "Karanbir Singh" >>> <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >> >> We've also got short timing in that: >> >> * Proposals have to be accepted and paired with a mentor by >> Thursday midnight (unsure of TZ.) >> >> * The de-duplication process is going on currently, we have >> conflicts with 3 of 6 students where they are also 'accepted' by >> other projects. We need to work with the other projects to decide >> who gets the student. I'll be sending out the rest of those >> emails shortly. >> >> For example, our #1 doc student has rated a higher preference for >> a GNOME project, so rather than try to do a last minute project >> split I may let him go there and take the #2 student (who is also >> good enough by far.) > > who are the other 2 with conflicts ? Lightweight Cloud Instance Contextualization Tool Tamer Tas Cloud in a box (Mentor: Rich Bowen ) Asad I'm sending another big group email on both of those shortly. >> >> So until we +1 _both_ of the kpatch students, we don't know if >> the second one has a conflict, and that conflict resolution >> appears to be manual (I think I saw the Google folks pushing >> conflicts manually, anyway, unsure how the notification works.) > > we can likely ping them, they tend to respond fairly quickly. > >> >> - Karsten >> >> >>>> On 04/22/2015 01:11 PM, Corey Henderson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:40 AM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay < >>>> sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Karanbir Singh >>>>>>> <kbsingh at centos.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both of the proposals for kpatch are solid. Corey - is >>>>>>> there a way for both the guys to work together ? Would >>>>>>> you be able to expand scope of what you were to deliver >>>>>>> out from there if you had 2 of them hammering away at >>>>>>> this ? Its clearly a complex problem space. >>>>>> >>>>>> If this is being considered as an option (for kpatch and >>>>>> documentation) please ensure that the students have a >>>>>> clear idea of the "new split proposal". Currently, they >>>>>> have proposed against one single idea. As part of the >>>>>> GSoC roll-out, the organization desires them to work on >>>>>> parts of that idea leading up to an integrated whole. The >>>>>> re-working and scoping of the proposals need to happen >>>>>> accordingly >>>>> >>>>> I suppose one person can continue with the original scope >>>>> of the kpatch >>>> building and distribution automation, while the other focuses >>>> on patch selection routines and safety infrastructure. >>>> However, the latter depends upon the former in that it's >>>> pretty useless to have testing around something you can't >>>> distribute, should the first part of it fall apart for some >>>> reason. I suppose #2 is still worth doing standalone assume >>>> #1 is eventually done. >>>>> >>>>> If you guys find this acceptable then I can work with them >>>>> on altering >>>> the proposals. What's the deadline of doing this last minute >>>> change? >>>> >>>> I am looking at it mostly from the point of view that if we >>>> have the extra slot, then the two kpatch folks both seem to >>>> largely know what they are doing - is this the best way to >>>> use that extra slot. >>>> >>>> Corey - if you feel that we can have two people hammer this >>>> through for a double the result, then lets do it. >>>> >>>> Sankarshan - its not clear from your statement what the >>>> issue here is - are you saying that the two people need to >>>> have independant goals and work on an independant code base >>>> ? >>>> >>>> - KB >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | >>>> twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : >>>> http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CentOS-gsocadmin mailing list CentOS-gsocadmin at centos.org >>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-gsocadmin >>>> >> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS-gsocadmin mailing list CentOS-gsocadmin at centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-gsocadmin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ CentOS-gsocadmin >> mailing list CentOS-gsocadmin at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-gsocadmin >> > - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlU342UACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHVaACfUcN+eeJSyiuUUqSPqjT3Q3kZ eZcAnA/+Nfx9barNSpO6IHy/nndNTPZK =8fgu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----