On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@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