On 04/22/2015 07:07 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > 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 this guy was good - do we know what project he's scoping up apart from us ? > > 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 >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-gsocadmin mailing list > CentOS-gsocadmin at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-gsocadmin > -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc