> So... I thought those items listed in "Submodule related work" are > considered too small to be complete projects separately, and they > are just "subprojects" of bigger project (maybe I have this thought > because I can't estimate complexity before truly digging in).
When writing these points, I was not sure about the complexity myself, but rather I wanted to produce a lot of different potential projects, which can be discussed if they sound exciting and are of good size. > In your response you talk about them as independent projects... > This means I can take only any one of them as starting point for > my proposal? Or maybe I misunderstood you? Well I think some of them are too small to stand alone for a full GSoC project. Others have a good size and complexity for GSoC already. > If it is true, than i'll try to take sh->C transition for submodule > command, For shell -> C transitions, see 65e1449614d b7d2a15b9f5 307de75c4 dec034a34e as all of them are rewrites from sh -> C for different commands. You might find common patterns (e.g. what is all needed for a conversion, such as slight updates to tests or documentation; certainly updating the build process in the Makefile, and of course the code translated). Most of these conversions, start out with a patch that is quite a literal translation and then afterwards add in optimizations. Another approach for the conversion is outlined in73c2779f42 (builtin-am: implement skeletal builtin am). I am not sure how easy this approach is for a submodule specific command. > and as addirional part of my whole project also this: > https://public-inbox.org/git/1488913150.881...@smtp.yandex.ru/T/ Yeah, that is also a good task :) Thanks for bringing it up. > Does it sound good? If does, then I'll begin to work on my proposal. Sure. Thanks, Stefan
