[GSOC 2020] Final proposal

[GSOC 2020] Final proposal

[Alberto EFG]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

Hello, this is my final proposal for GSoC, there is still time to do
some changes in case anyone has feedback, otherwise this is it :)


[-- Attachment #2: proposal-final.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 86264 bytes --]

Re: [GSOC 2020] Final proposal

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Alberto,

> Hello, this is my final proposal for GSoC, there is still time to do
> some changes in case anyone has feedback, otherwise this is it :)

Thank you for this thorough proposal!

For 8.5 it would be good to provide criteria that allow us to evaluate
your progress.  Being able to look at the code is obviously a
precondition, but what we really want to know is what features will have
to have been completed (and to what degree) at the time of the
evaluation.

For some of the deliverables and goals it would be good to see a little
more detail if possible.  You mention systemd.device and systemd.socket
files, but I can’t imagine what your goals with regards to the Shepherd
are — is it to implement a similar feature (what exactly would that
be?), or support for reading these files…?

--
Ricardo

Re: [GSOC 2020] Final proposal

[Alberto EFG]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]


Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Hi Alberto,
>
>> Hello, this is my final proposal for GSoC, there is still time to do
>> some changes in case anyone has feedback, otherwise this is it :)
>
> Thank you for this thorough proposal!
>
> For 8.5 it would be good to provide criteria that allow us to evaluate
> your progress.  Being able to look at the code is obviously a
> precondition, but what we really want to know is what features will have
> to have been completed (and to what degree) at the time of the
> evaluation.
>
> For some of the deliverables and goals it would be good to see a little
> more detail if possible.  You mention systemd.device and systemd.socket
> files, but I can’t imagine what your goals with regards to the Shepherd
> are — is it to implement a similar feature (what exactly would that
> be?), or support for reading these files…?

Thank you so much for all the feedback!! I add my proposal with the
suggested changes.

I tried to be more specific with the goals, and the milestones. I added
a section, so number 8.5 is now 8.6, however I tried to be more specific
in the timeline than in 8.5.

Ludovic told me to focus my main goal on improving Shepherd internals,
rather than the systemd unit files parsing as that would be the "icing on
the cake", I hope that it is reflected on my proposal.

There is still a really short amount of time for last minute changes,
but this will probably be it.

[-- Attachment #2: proposal-final.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 100665 bytes --]