On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
<berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
Enthusiasm of the students to learn libvirt isn't the only
consideration.
The project mentors have to put non-trivial effort into GSoC and want to
have some level of confidence that the project will result in a positive
outcome for both the student & the project.
Sure, i think so.
I think a project looking at adding 'rename' API support for all objects
in libvirt has a high liklihood of success, since it is a clearly defined
problem with easily measurable success criteria and a fairly unambiguous
design to follow that will not require much debate.
A project looking at "capabilities" has a much lower liklihood of success
because it very focused on architectural design. Getting such design right
requires significant knowledge of libvirt, and will require significant
debate & discussion by many parties on the list. Design discussions of this
kind pay no attention to any external deadlines, that programs like GSoC
have. I'm not saying a student couldn't write something, but I'm not
confident that the result would be something we'd be prepared to merge,
and by that benchmark could be considered a failure.
Yup, i think so too.
I think GSoC projects should focus on something where the design is clearly
defined upfront, and the task is mostly about learning the libvirt codebase
& getting a thorough implementation done.
Maybe it should be like this. Renaming jobs may be more comfortable for GSOC.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Thanks
Harry Wei