From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6BB4497A-1B6D-4924-84B0-7386F6B83589@9srv.net> References: <28D367DF-E023-47AF-BC7A-1A09339EB2D1@9srv.net> <20120314190332.GA17909@polynum.com> <6BB4497A-1B6D-4924-84B0-7386F6B83589@9srv.net> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:35:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e090ba1128904bb3d458a Subject: Re: [9fans] GSoC 2012 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 698ec6de-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --047d7b2e090ba1128904bb3d458a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sending from phone, please pardon errors. There are projects that use gsoc for docs and the like. I would see nothing wrong with someone contributing code to the installer -- especially someone with less familiarity with p9 than most 9fans -- they will likely taake longer than 1-2 weeks. Additionally it might be a good opportunity to get someone interested who doesn't have C skills, which is something we have been historically awful at in GSoC. --dho On Mar 14, 2012 6:58 PM, "Anthony Sorace" wrote: > On Mar 14, 2012, at 18:15 , Charles Forsyth wrote: > > > At least in the past, I'm sure I followed a discussion that the summer of > > code was intended (ie, required) to produce code, not documentation > > or packaging, although that might have changed. > > This is true. All projects in GSoC are required to be (at least > principally) > about producing code. No prohibition on including work on relevant > documentation, of course, but code must be the focus. > > Which isn't to say that installation is out of scope. I could imagine a > proposal looking at creating installation CDs from trees or installing > under different circumstances being code-focused. > > Anthony > > --047d7b2e090ba1128904bb3d458a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sending from phone, please pardon errors.

There are projects that use gsoc for docs and the like. I would see noth= ing wrong with someone contributing code to the installer -- especially som= eone with less familiarity with p9 than most 9fans -- they will likely taak= e longer than 1-2 weeks. Additionally it might be a good opportunity to get= someone interested who doesn't have C skills, which is something we ha= ve been historically awful at in GSoC.

--dho

On Mar 14, 2012 6:58 PM, "Anthony Sorace&qu= ot; <a@9srv.net> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2012, at 18:15 , Charles Forsyth wrote:

> At least in the past, I'm sure I followed a discussion that the su= mmer of
> code was intended (ie, required) to produce code, not documentation > or packaging, although that might have changed.

This is true. All projects in GSoC are required to be (at least principally= )
about producing code. No prohibition on including work on relevant
documentation, of course, but code must be the focus.

Which isn't to say that installation is out of scope. I could imagine a=
proposal looking at creating installation CDs from trees or installing
under different circumstances being code-focused.

Anthony

--047d7b2e090ba1128904bb3d458a--