subject:"Proposal"

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello



I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you i asked before and i still await your positive response thanks

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Proposal

Hello

I have a business proposal of mutual benefits i would like to discuss with
you.

Business Proposal

2018-07-05 Thread BRENDA WILSON




I am Sgt.Brenda Wilson, originally from Lake Jackson Texas USA.I personally 
made a special research and I came across your information. I am presently 
writing this mail to you from U.S Military base Kabul Afghanistan I have a 
secured business proposal for you. Reply for more details via my private E-mail 
( brendawilson...@hotmail.com )

Proposal

2018-06-07 Thread Mr. Fawaz KhE. Al Saleh





--
Good day,

i know you do not know me personally but i have checked your profile  
and i see generosity in you, There's an urgent offer attach

to your name here in the office of Mr. Fawaz KhE. Al Saleh Member of
the Board of Directors, Kuveyt Türk Participation Bank  (Turkey) and
head of private banking and wealth management
Regards,
Mr. Fawaz KhE. Al Saleh

BUSINESS INTEREST/ PROPOSAL

2018-06-04 Thread ZHAO DONG

Hello

RE:BUSINESS INQUIRY/ PROPOSAL

How are you doing today, i hope this mail finds you in a good and convenient 
position!

My name is ZHAO DONG. I am the senior manager for Procurement, Hong Kong 
Refining Company (Sinopec Group Inc) I have been mandated to source crude oil 
from Libya for
supply to our refineries. However, I have been able to establish a good 
relationship with the senior management of the Azzawya Oil Refining Company, 
Libya.

I am now looking for a competent middle man to stand in between my company, 
Hong Kong Refining Company and the Azzawya Oil Refining Company of Libya for 
the sale and
purchase of 2 Million Barrels Monthly for 36 Months. This is in order to take 
home a commission of USD5 to USD7 per barrel. This amount is payable to the 
middle man as commission.

On your response I will give you further details you may need and proof of my 
identity. Kindly reply directly to zhaodong...@gmail.com or 
zhaodon...@yandex.com for further vital details you may need.

Best Regards

ZHAO DONG

Proposal

2018-06-02 Thread Miss Victoria Mehmet





--
Hello

I have been trying to contact you. Did you get my business proposal?

Best Regards,
Miss.Victoria Mehmet

Lucrative Business Proposal

2018-06-02 Thread Adrien Saif





--
Dear Friend,

I would like to discuss a very important issue with you. I am writing 
to find out if this is your valid email. Please, let me know if this 
email is valid


Kind regards
Adrien Saif
Attorney to Quatif Group of Companies

Lucrative Business Proposal

2018-06-02 Thread Adrien Saif





--
Dear Friend,

I would like to discuss a very important issue with you. I am writing 
to find out if this is your valid email. Please, let me know if this 
email is valid


Kind regards
Adrien Saif
Attorney to Quatif Group of Companies

Proposal

2018-05-28 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk





--
Hello

I have been trying to contact you. Did you get my business proposal?

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turke

Proposal

2018-05-28 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk





--
Hello

I have been trying to contact you. Did you get my business proposal?

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turke

Proposal

2018-05-27 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




--
Hello

I have been trying to contact you. Did you get my business proposal?

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turke

Proposal

2018-05-26 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-23 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-22 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-21 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Business Proposal

2018-05-21 Thread Alan austin

Hello,
I am Mr. Alan Austin, I am currently working with Credit suisse Bank London. I 
saw your contact during my private search and I have a deep believe that you 
will be very honest, committed and capable of assisting in this business 
venture.

I am an account officer to late Dr. Manzoor Hassan who died with his entire 
family in Syria, It is based on this that I am contacting you to stand as the 
beneficiary to my late client so that his funds in our custody will be released 
and paid to you as the beneficiary to the deceased.

It is important you respond back to me with your full name and address, 
including your direct phone number to enable me give you full details of this 
transaction and more information about my late client who left huge amount of 
money in our Bank. I will provide you with all the necessary information, 
documents and proof to legally back up the claim from the different offices 
concerned for the smooth transfer of the fund to any of your accounts as the 
true beneficiary.

Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Alan Austin

Proposal

2018-05-20 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-20 Thread Zeliha Omer Faruk




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-16 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-16 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-13 Thread Zeliha Omer Faruk




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-13 Thread Zeliha Omer Faruk




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-05-11 Thread Zeliha Omer Faruk




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




--
Hello

Greetings to you please i have a business proposal for you contact me
for more detailes asap thanks.

Best Regards,
Miss.Zeliha ömer faruk
Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-04-30 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for our mutual benefit please let
me know if you are interested.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-04-30 Thread Miss Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for our mutual benefit please let
me know if you are interested.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-04-29 Thread Zeliha Omer faruk




Hello Dear

Greetings to you, please I have a very important business proposal for our
mutual benefit, please let me know if you are interested.

Best Regards,
Miss. Zeliha ömer Faruk
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215

Proposal




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for you please reply for more
info.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for you please reply for more
info.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for you please reply for more
info.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal




Hello

   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please
i know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me
personally i have a business proposal for you please reply for more
info.



Best Regards,

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere
Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Proposal

2018-04-16 Thread MS Zeliha Omer Faruk




Hello

Greeetings to you please did you get my previous email regarding my
investment proposal last week friday ?

MS.Zeliha ömer faruk
zeliha.omer.fa...@gmail.com

business Proposal / Geschäftsvorschlag

2018-04-07 Thread Anders Karlsson

I have a business Proposal for you, contact me directly 
This business has a cash involvement of $250,000,000.00

Anders Karlsson

Ich habe einen Geschäftsvorschlag für Sie, kontaktieren Sie mich direkt

Dieses Unternehmen hat eine Beteiligung von $ 250.000.000,00

- [] Anders Karlsson

Proposal

2018-04-01 Thread Melisa Mehmet

Hello 


   
   Greetings to you today i asked before but i did't get a response please i 
know this might come to you as a surprise because you do not know me personally 
so i will give you a video call to explain more but did you get my previous 
email ? Let me know asap.





Best Regards,

Miss Melisa Mehmet 

Esentepe Mahallesi Büyükdere 

Caddesi Kristal Kule Binasi
No:215
 Sisli - Istanbul, Turkey

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-27 Thread Christian Couder

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
<ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25.03.2018 12:46, Christian Couder wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
>> <ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23.03.2018 19:11, Christian Couder wrote:
>>>
>>>>> * Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
>>>>> of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
>>>>> should be a trivial task.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of things that the test suite doesn't test.
>>>
>>> Hopefully, by first adding new tests, any eventual bug will be spotted.
>>
>> I was thinking about things like memory leaks that tests cannot easily
>> spot.>
>
> I will do my best and follow best practices in order to avoid any memory
> leaks. However, to make sure that my code is really leak free, I will use
> Valgrind, which is already integrated with the testing framework.

Yeah, but it's still not so easy even with valgrind for a number of
reasons. For example it's difficult to test all the error paths, and
there are also some memory leaks that we accept when we know that they
happen just once and that we are going to exit soon anyway when we
should free the memory.

>> Ok. Feel free to resend another version of your proposal.
>
> Sorry for not sending the whole proposal again. I decided to send only the
> changed parts because the proposal is quite big and I wanted to avoid
> sending the same thing over and over again.

It's up to you, but but fewer people might review it.

> One thing I did not mention in the previous reply was that I also added a
> new paragraph to "Benefits to community" about 'git stash' being slow on
> Windows for a lot of users. I consider this alone to be a very good
> justification for this project and doing this project will be very
> beneficial for the Windows users.

Sure.

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-26 Thread Johannes Schindelin

Hi Paul,

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:

> One thing I did not mention in the previous reply was that I also added
> a new paragraph to "Benefits to community" about 'git stash' being slow
> on Windows for a lot of users. I consider this alone to be a very good
> justification for this project and doing this project will be very
> beneficial for the Windows users.

Yes!

Thank you,
Johannes

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-25 Thread Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu


On 25.03.2018 12:46, Christian Couder wrote:

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
<ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23.03.2018 19:11, Christian Couder wrote:


* Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
should be a trivial task.


There are a lot of things that the test suite doesn't test.


Hopefully, by first adding new tests, any eventual bug will be spotted.


I was thinking about things like memory leaks that tests cannot easily spot.> 


I will do my best and follow best practices in order to avoid any memory 
leaks. However, to make sure that my code is really leak free, I will 
use Valgrind, which is already integrated with the testing framework.



Ok. Feel free to resend another version of your proposal.
Sorry for not sending the whole proposal again. I decided to send only 
the changed parts because the proposal is quite big and I wanted to 
avoid sending the same thing over and over again.


One thing I did not mention in the previous reply was that I also added 
a new paragraph to "Benefits to community" about 'git stash' being slow 
on Windows for a lot of users. I consider this alone to be a very good 
justification for this project and doing this project will be very 
beneficial for the Windows users.


Best regards,
Paul Ungureanu

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-25 Thread Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu


On 23.03.2018 19:06, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

[... proposal ...]


This is a pretty good proposal. The initial draft at converting `stash
list` is a good start (it will need to be converted to avoid spawning an
extra process, but that is something we can do incrementally, together).


Thank you for your kind words. It feels good to see other people 
appreciate my work. It is a strong incentive to keep going on. I made a 
few adjustments and I hope that the final version will be better.


Best regards,
Paul Ungureanu

Proposal

2018-03-25 Thread @Sheng Li Hung

I have a very profitable business for you

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-25 Thread Christian Couder

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
<ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23.03.2018 19:11, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>>> * Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
>>> of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
>>> should be a trivial task.
>>
>> There are a lot of things that the test suite doesn't test.
>
> Hopefully, by first adding new tests, any eventual bug will be spotted.

I was thinking about things like memory leaks that tests cannot easily spot.

>>> * In the end, an analysis based on performance can be made.
>>> Benchmarking the script will be done by recording the running time
>>> given a large set of diversified tests that cover all the
>>> functionalities, before and after conversion. The new commands should
>>> run faster just because they were written in C, but I expect to see
>>> even more improvements.
>>
>> If you want to do benchmarks, you might want to add performance tests
>> into t/perf.
>
> That is great. I will surely make use of the existent testing framework to
> do benchmarks.

Good.

>>> ## Example of conversion (for “git stash list”)
>>> --
>>> To test my capabilities and to be sure that I am able to work on a
>>> project of this kind, I tried to convert “git stash list” into a built-
>>> in. The result can be found below in text-only version or at the Github
>>> link.
>>
>> I think it would be better if it was sent as a patch (maybe an RFC
>> patch) to the mailing list and add the link to the patch email in the
>> maling list archive to your proposal.
>
> I sent it as a [RFC] patch to the mailing list and included it in the
> proposal.
>
> <https://public-inbox.org/git/20180324182313.13705-1-ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com>

Nice.

>> It could be useful if you described a bit more how you could (re)use
>> the work that has already been made.
>>
>> In the rest of your proposal it looks like you are starting from
>> scratch, which is a bit strange if a lot of progress has already been
>> made.
>
> The patches about converting ‘git stash’ are a great starting point and I
> will definitely use them. Each time I start converting a new command I will
> first take a look at what other patches there are, evaluate them and if I
> consider the patch to be good enough I will continue my work on top of that
> patch. Otherwise, I will start from scratch and that patch will only serve
> for comparison.
>
> One other resource that is of great importance is git itself. I can learn
> how a builtin is structured and how it is built by considering examples the
> other Git commands. Having a similar coding standard used, the codebase will
> be homogeneous and hopefully easier to maintain.
>
> Another important resource are commands that are Google Summer of Code
> projects from previous years (2016 and 2017) which had as purpose to convert
> “git bisect” and “git submodule”. I can always take a look at the patches
> they submitted and read their code reviews to avoid making same mistakes
> they did.

Nice.

>> It is probably better especially for reviewers and more common to work
>> in small batches, for example to send a patch series converting a few
>> related commands, then to start working on the next small batch of
>> commands in another patch series while improving the first patch
>> series according to reviews.
>>
>> Also we ask GSoC students to communicate publicly every week about
>> their project for example by writing a blg post or sending a report to
>> the mailing list.
>
> Noted.
>
>>> ## Git contributions
>>> --
>>> My first contribution to Git was to help making “git tag --contains
>>> ” les chatty if  is invalid. Looking over the list of available
>>> microprojects, there were a couple of microprojects which got my
>>> attention, but I picked this up because it seemed to be a long-standing
>>> bug (I noticed it was approached by students in 2016, 2017 and now in
>>> 2018). Thanks to the code reviews from the mailing list, after a few
>>> iterations I succeeded in coming up with a patch that not only fixed
>>> the mentioned problem, but also a few others that were having the same
>>> cause.
>>>
>>> It got merged in the proposed updates branch.
>>
>> What is its status in Junio's "What's cooking in Git" emails?
>
> It is now in the ‘next’ branch of the Git repository.
>
> I updated the proposal, in which I included these ideas and some additional
> examples. Thank you a lot!

Ok. Feel free to resend another version of your proposal.

Thanks.

Re: [RFC v3][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-24 Thread Alban Gruin

Hi,
this is the first draft of my proposal.

---
ABSTRACT

git is a modular source control management software, and all of its
subcommands are programs on their own. A lot of them are written in C,
but a couple of them are shell or Perl scripts. This is the case of
=git-rebase--interactive= (or interactive rebase), which is a shell
script. Rewriting it in C would improve its performance, its
portability, and maybe its robustness.


ABOUT `git-rebase` AND `git-rebase--interactive`

git-rebase allows to re-apply changes on top of another branch. For
instance, when a local branch and a remote branch have diverged,
git-rebase can re-unify them, applying each change made on the
local branch on top of the remote branch.

git-rebase--interactive is used to reorganize commits by reordering,
rewording, or squashing them. To achieve this purpose, =git= opens the
list of commits to be modified in a text editor (hence the
interactivity), as well as the actions to be performed for each of
them.


PROJECT GOALS

Back in 2016, Johannes Schindelin discussed[1] about retiring
git-rebase.sh (described here as a “hacky shell script”) in favor of
a builtin. He explained that, as it’s only a command-line parser for
git-rebase--am.sh, git-rebase--interactive.sh, and
git-rebase--merge.sh, these 3 scripts should be rewritten first.

The goal of this project is to rewrite git-rebase--interactive.sh in
C, for multiple reasons :

Performance improvements
Shell scripts are inherently slow. When Johannes Schindelin began to
rewrite some parts of git-rebase--interactive in C, its performance
increased from 3 to 5 times, depending on the platform[2].

That’s because each command is a program by itself. So, for each
command, the shell interpreter has to spawn a new process and to load
a new program (with fork() and exec() syscalls), which is an
expensive process.

Those commands can be other git commands. Sometimes, they are
wrappers to call internal C functions (eg. git-rebase--helper),
something shell scripts can’t do natively. These wrappers basically
parse the parameters, then start the appropriate function, which is
obviously slower than just calling a function from C.

Other commands can be POSIX utilities (eg. sed, cut, etc.). They
have their own problems (speed aside), namely portability.

Portability improvements
Shell scripts often relies on many of those POSIX utilities, which are
not necessarily natively available on all platforms (most notably,
Windows), or may have more or less features depending on the
implementation.

Although C is not perfect portability-wise, it’s still better than
shell scripts. For instance, the resulting binaries will not
necessarily depend on third-party programs or libraries.


RISKS

Of course, rewriting a piece of software takes time, and can lead to
regressions (ie. new bugs). To mitigate that risk, I should understand
well the functions I want to rewrite, run tests on a regular basis and
write new if needed, and of course discuss about my code with the
community during reviews.


APPROXIMATIVE TIMELINE

Normally, I would be able to work 35 to 40 hours a week. When I have
courses or exams at university, I could work between 20 and 25 hours a
week.

Community bonding --- April 23, 2018 -- May 14, 2018
/I’ll still have courses at the university during this period./

During the community bonding, I would like to dive into git’s
codebase, and to understand what git-rebase--interactive does under
the hood. At the same time, I’d communicate with the community and my
mentor, seeking for clarifications, and asking questions about how
things should or should not be done.

Weeks 1 & 2 --- May 14, 2018 -- May 27, 2018
/From May 14 to 18, I have exams at the university, so I won’t be able
to work full time./

I would search for edge cases not covered by current tests and write
some if needed.

Week 3 --- May 28, 2018 -- June 3, 2018
At the same time, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own
shell script, if it has not been deprecated or moved in the
meantime. Dscho explained that this would be the first step of the
conversion[1]. This operation is not really tricky by itself,
as --preserve-merges is about only 50 lines of code into
git_rebase__interactive(), plus some specific functions
(eg. pick_one()).

Weeks 4 to 7 --- June 4, 2018 -- July 1, 2018
Then, I would start to incrementally rewrite
git-rebase--interactive.sh functions in C, and move them
git-rebase--helper.c. Newly-rewritten C functions are then
associated to command-line parameters to be able to use them from
shell scripts.

Examples of such conversion can be found in commits
0cce4a2756[3] (rebase -i -x: add exec commands via the
rebase--helper) and b903674b35[4] (bisect--helper:
`is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell function in C).

There is a lot of functions into git-rebase--interactive.sh to
rewrite. Most of them are small, and some of them are even wrappers
for a single command (eg. do_next()), so they shouldn’t b

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-24 Thread Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu


On 23.03.2018 19:11, Christian Couder wrote:


* Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
should be a trivial task.


There are a lot of things that the test suite doesn't test.


Hopefully, by first adding new tests, any eventual bug will be spotted.


* In the end, an analysis based on performance can be made.
Benchmarking the script will be done by recording the running time
given a large set of diversified tests that cover all the
functionalities, before and after conversion. The new commands should
run faster just because they were written in C, but I expect to see
even more improvements.


If you want to do benchmarks, you might want to add performance tests
into t/perf.


That is great. I will surely make use of the existent testing framework 
to do benchmarks.



## Example of conversion (for “git stash list”)
--
To test my capabilities and to be sure that I am able to work on a
project of this kind, I tried to convert “git stash list” into a built-
in. The result can be found below in text-only version or at the Github
link.


I think it would be better if it was sent as a patch (maybe an RFC
patch) to the mailing list and add the link to the patch email in the
maling list archive to your proposal.


I sent it as a [RFC] patch to the mailing list and included it in the 
proposal.


<https://public-inbox.org/git/20180324182313.13705-1-ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com>


It could be useful if you described a bit more how you could (re)use
the work that has already been made.

In the rest of your proposal it looks like you are starting from
scratch, which is a bit strange if a lot of progress has already been
made.


The patches about converting ‘git stash’ are a great starting point and 
I will definitely use them. Each time I start converting a new command I 
will first take a look at what other patches there are, evaluate them 
and if I consider the patch to be good enough I will continue my work on 
top of that patch. Otherwise, I will start from scratch and that patch 
will only serve for comparison.


One other resource that is of great importance is git itself. I can 
learn how a builtin is structured and how it is built by considering 
examples the other Git commands. Having a similar coding standard used, 
the codebase will be homogeneous and hopefully easier to maintain.


Another important resource are commands that are Google Summer of Code 
projects from previous years (2016 and 2017) which had as purpose to 
convert “git bisect” and “git submodule”. I can always take a look at 
the patches they submitted and read their code reviews to avoid making 
same mistakes they did.



It is probably better especially for reviewers and more common to work
in small batches, for example to send a patch series converting a few
related commands, then to start working on the next small batch of
commands in another patch series while improving the first patch
series according to reviews.

Also we ask GSoC students to communicate publicly every week about
their project for example by writing a blg post or sending a report to
the mailing list.


Noted.


## Git contributions
--
My first contribution to Git was to help making “git tag --contains
” les chatty if  is invalid. Looking over the list of available
microprojects, there were a couple of microprojects which got my
attention, but I picked this up because it seemed to be a long-standing
bug (I noticed it was approached by students in 2016, 2017 and now in
2018). Thanks to the code reviews from the mailing list, after a few
iterations I succeeded in coming up with a patch that not only fixed
the mentioned problem, but also a few others that were having the same
cause.

It got merged in the proposed updates branch.


What is its status in Junio's "What's cooking in Git" emails?


It is now in the ‘next’ branch of the Git repository.

I updated the proposal, in which I included these ideas and some 
additional examples. Thank you a lot!


Best regards,
Paul Ungureanu

Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-24 Thread Christian Couder

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Pratik Karki <predatoram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Thanks to you, I realized my proposal was
> a bit ambitious. Both git-stash and git-rebase are big
> commitment. After much analyzing, I found out I cannot complete
> both in the given time frame. So, I decided to stick to one and
> complete it.

Great.

[...]

> There has been some development in `git-stash` as seen on
> [<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-j...@teichroeb.net/>]
> (https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-j...@teichroeb.net/).
> To maximize the productivity, the findings from the patch submitted can
> be used. Since, there are already much discussions regarding the
> rewrite.

In general it would be nice if you summarized what has already been
done, how you can reuse it and what is needed to complete it.

I see that you talk about some of that below, but a more general
overview might be nice too.

It could be interesting also to put the author(s) of the work that you
will reuse in Cc.

[...]

> Timeline and Development Cycle
> --
>
> -   Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
>
> -   Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
> possible test improvements in for `git-stash`.
>
> Firstly, the test suite coverage of every command will be reviewed
> using gcov and kcov.

I don't think it is necessary to spend a lot of time on the test suite coverage.

> The test suite might not be perfect or
> comprehensive but must cover all the major code paths and
> command-line switches of the script. For the tests which seem
> inadequate, minimum required tests are written and developed
> incrementally. The minimum tests must provide safety net for
> migration of scripts to built-ins. The tests would be sent as a
> separate patch for parallel development and review process so that
> development of built-ins can happen at the same time productively.

Nice.

> The tests will be written for every code changes and will be worked
> throughout the summer.
>
> -   May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.
>
> The shell scripts are translated on a line-by-line basis into C
> code. The C code will be written in a way to maximize the use of git
> internal API. In git-stash `parse-options` API can be used for
> implementing parsing argument of command-line. This would be way
> better than parsing via the scripts. Firstly, I will start
> implementing `stash --helper`from respective scripts to C code. Then
> increment it further more. Then I'll start converting git-stash.sh
> on a line-by-line basis.

Not sure what you mean by line-by-line basis.

>  Again for git-stash some work seem to be done
> 
> [<https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-j...@teichroeb.net/>]
> (https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-j...@teichroeb.net/).
> Now, to maximize the output I'll be taking findings from the
> previous patch and use it for my patch. As seen from the comments in
> the patch some tests for checking branch when `git stash branch`
> fails needs to be written.

Nice. Maybe writing those tests can come earlier in you schedule.

> New tests will be written and code
> coverage tools will be used for the written code.

Not sure that code coverage tools need to be used.

> -   May 13: Making minimal `builtin/stash.c` with `stash--helper` ready
> for review process. (This goes on for some time.)
>
> The initial review of minimal builtin would be ready for git-stash.
> The result C code at this stage may not be necessarily be efficient
> but would be free from obvious bugs and can serve as a baseline for
> the final patch. This is sent for review process which can take some
> time. The code will ofcourse be tested using the test suite with
> some additional tests.

How does that relates with the existing work? Will this be one or
several patch series? What will each patch do?

[...]

> -   June 10 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c`. Benchmarking
> and profiling is done. They are exclusively compared to their
> original shell scripts, to check whether they are more performant or
> not and the results are published in the mailing list for further
> discussion.

Will the performance tests be added to the t/perf tests?

> The C code will be optimized for speed and efficiency in this stage. The
> built-ins will now be profiled using the new efficient test suites to
> find hot spots. Bench-marking is also done in comparison to original
> scripts.The performance for stash can be measured by making it stash
> large number of chang

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-24 Thread Christian Couder

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Alban Gruin <alban.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is my second draft of my proposal. As last time, any feedback is
> welcome :)
>
> I did not write my phone number and address here for obvious reasons,
> but they will be in the “about me” section of the final proposal.
>
> Apart from that, do you think there is something to add?

Please take a look at the comments that have been made on other's
proposal. Many proposals could be improved in the same way and it is a
bit annoying for us to repeat the same things many times.

[...]

> The goal of this project is to rewrite git-rebase--interactive in C
> as it has been discussed on the git mailing list[1], for multiple
> reasons :

In general when the project or some issues related to the project have
already been worked on or discussed on the mailing list, it is a good
thing to summarize those discussions and link to them in your
proposal. It shows that you want to take the time to gather existing
information, to understand that information and to take it into
account in your proposal, and it can also make your proposal easier to
read and understand.

More specifically your proposal has some links which is nice, but I
think it would be better if it summarized a bit more what the links
contain.

[...]

> Weeks 1 & 2 -- May 14, 2018 - May 27, 2018
> /From May 14 to 18, I have exams at the university, so I won’t be able
> to work full time./
>
> I would search for edge cases not covered by current tests and write
> some if needed.
>
> Week 3 -- May 28, 2018 - June 3, 2018
> At the same time, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own
> shell script (as described in Dscho’s email[1]), if it has
> not been deprecated or moved in the meantime.

Here for example it is better if we could get a better idea about how
you plan to do it without having to read Dscho's email.

> This operation is not
> really tricky by itself, as --preserve-merges is about only 50 lines
> of code into git_rebase__interactive().
>
> Weeks 4 to 7 -- May 4, 2018 - July 1, 2018
> Then, I would start to incrementally rewrite
> git-rebase--interactive.sh functions in C, and move them
> git-rebase--helper.c (as in commits 0cce4a2756[2] (rebase -i
> -x: add exec commands via the rebase--helper) and b903674b35[3]
> (bisect--helper: `is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell
> function in C)).

I know what you mean but I would still appreciate if you could summarize it.

> There is a lot of functions into git-rebase--interactive.sh to
> rewrite. Most of them are small, and some of them are even wrappers
> for a single command (eg. is_merge_commit()), so they shouldn’t be
> really problematic.
>
> A couple of them are quite long (eg. pick_one()), and will probably
> be even longer once rewritten in C due to the low-level nature of the
> language. They also tend to depend a lot on other smaller functions.
>
> The plan here would be to start rewriting the smaller functions when
> applicable (ie. they’re not a simple command wrapper) before
> working on the biggest of them.
>
> Week 8 -- July 2, 2018 - July 8, 2018
> When all majors functions from git-rebase--interactive.sh have been
> rewritten in C, I would retire the script in favor of a builtin.
>
> Weeks 9 & 10 -- July 9, 2018 - July 22, 2018
> I plan to spend theses two weeks to improve the code coverage where
> needed.
>
> Weeks 11 & 12 -- July 23, 2018 - August 5, 2018
> In the last two weeks, I would polish the code where needed, in order
> to improve its performance or to make it more readable.

We like to have big improvements be split into batches of patches,
also called patch series, and polishing of the first batches happening
as soon as possible so that they can be ready to be merged soon. The
patch series that are sent to the mailing list often need a number of
round of reviews and improvements which can take a long time, so it is
better if this process starts as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-23 Thread Christian Couder

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
<ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 23:08 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
>> <ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of
>> > this
>> > project.
>>
>> Could you explain a bit more how you would convert a function? Or
>> could you explain for example how you would convert "git stash list"
>> below?
>
> In order to convert a command, all the functions which are used by the
> command must be converted first. The conversion will start with the
> bottom-level functions, which do not have any dependencies.
>
> For example, to convert "git stash list", the parser will call
> “list_stash”, which will call “have_stash”. The conversion of these
> functions will be made in reverse order they were mentioned (have_stash
> first and then list_stash).

Ok.

> It is very important to know the Git source well in order to avoid
> reimplementing functionality. In this case “have_stash()” is somehow
> already implemented as “get_oid(ref_stash, )”.
>
>> > I am expecting to submit a patch for every command that is
>> > converted.
>> > This way, I have well set milestones and results will be seen as
>> > soon
>> > as possible. Moreover, seeing my contributions getting merged will
>> > be a
>> > huge confidence boost to myself.
>> > Each “convert” phase of the project below is not only about
>> > converting
>> > from Shell to C, but also ensuring that everything is documented,
>> > there
>> > are enough tests and there are no regressions.
>> >
>> > 14th May - 20th May - Convert "git stash list"
>>
>> For example could you explain a bit more which functions/commands you
>> would create in which file and how you would call them to convert
>> `git
>> stash list`
>
> The new C code will be found in stash-helper.c and will be used by git-
> stash.sh until the full conversion is complete. As soon as the entire
> conversion is done, stash-helper.c will be promoted to stash.c. Any
> functionality that will be implemented, but is not strictly related to
> git stash will reside in the appropriate files (for example if I had to
> implement similar to get_oid, which is not related to git stash, but to
> Git, then I would not implement it in stash-helper.c; anyway, I do not
> believe I will encounter this situation that often).

Ok.

> In the updated version of the proposal [1], I included the ideas stated
> before and more information about the procces of benchmarking. In
> addition, to test my capabilities and to be sure that I am able to work
> on a project of this kind, I tried to convert “git stash list” into a
> built-in (the code can be found in proposal).
>
> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TtdD7zgUsEOszHG5HX1at4zHMDsPmSB
> YWqydOPTTpV8/edit

I guess that below you inlined the updated version of your proposal. Nice.

> Convert “git stash” to builtin

[...]

> * Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
> of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
> should be a trivial task.

There are a lot of things that the test suite doesn't test.

> * Write more tests to ensure the best code coverage. This step will be
> almost non existent due to step 4.

Maybe you should use a numbered list if you want to refer to the items
by their number.

> * In the end, an analysis based on performance can be made.
> Benchmarking the script will be done by recording the running time
> given a large set of diversified tests that cover all the
> functionalities, before and after conversion. The new commands should
> run faster just because they were written in C, but I expect to see
> even more improvements.

If you want to do benchmarks, you might want to add performance tests
into t/perf.

[...]

> ## Example of conversion (for “git stash list”)
> --
> To test my capabilities and to be sure that I am able to work on a
> project of this kind, I tried to convert “git stash list” into a built-
> in. The result can be found below in text-only version or at the Github
> link.

I think it would be better if it was sent as a patch (maybe an RFC
patch) to the mailing list and add the link to the patch email in the
maling list archive to your proposal.

[...]

> Useful resources
> There has been a lot of progress made in this direction already and I
> believe it will serve of great help. However, from my

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-23 Thread Johannes Schindelin

Hi Paul-Sebastian,

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 23:08 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
> > <ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of
> > > this
> > > project.
> > 
> > Could you explain a bit more how you would convert a function? Or
> > could you explain for example how you would convert "git stash list"
> > below?
> 
> In order to convert a command, all the functions which are used by the
> command must be converted first. The conversion will start with the
> bottom-level functions, which do not have any dependencies.
> 
> For example, to convert "git stash list", the parser will call
> “list_stash”, which will call “have_stash”. The conversion of these
> functions will be made in reverse order they were mentioned (have_stash
> first and then list_stash).
> 
> It is very important to know the Git source well in order to avoid
> reimplementing functionality. In this case “have_stash()” is somehow
> already implemented as “get_oid(ref_stash, )”. 

Very good

> [... proposal ...]

This is a pretty good proposal. The initial draft at converting `stash
list` is a good start (it will need to be converted to avoid spawning an
extra process, but that is something we can do incrementally, together).

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-22 Thread Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu

Hello,

On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 23:08 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
> <ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of
> > this
> > project.
> 
> Could you explain a bit more how you would convert a function? Or
> could you explain for example how you would convert "git stash list"
> below?

In order to convert a command, all the functions which are used by the
command must be converted first. The conversion will start with the
bottom-level functions, which do not have any dependencies.

For example, to convert "git stash list", the parser will call
“list_stash”, which will call “have_stash”. The conversion of these
functions will be made in reverse order they were mentioned (have_stash
first and then list_stash).

It is very important to know the Git source well in order to avoid
reimplementing functionality. In this case “have_stash()” is somehow
already implemented as “get_oid(ref_stash, )”. 

> > I am expecting to submit a patch for every command that is
> > converted.
> > This way, I have well set milestones and results will be seen as
> > soon
> > as possible. Moreover, seeing my contributions getting merged will
> > be a
> > huge confidence boost to myself.
> > Each “convert” phase of the project below is not only about
> > converting
> > from Shell to C, but also ensuring that everything is documented,
> > there
> > are enough tests and there are no regressions.
> > 
> > 14th May - 20th May - Convert "git stash list"
> 
> For example could you explain a bit more which functions/commands you
> would create in which file and how you would call them to convert
> `git
> stash list`

The new C code will be found in stash-helper.c and will be used by git-
stash.sh until the full conversion is complete. As soon as the entire
conversion is done, stash-helper.c will be promoted to stash.c. Any
functionality that will be implemented, but is not strictly related to
git stash will reside in the appropriate files (for example if I had to
implement similar to get_oid, which is not related to git stash, but to
Git, then I would not implement it in stash-helper.c; anyway, I do not
believe I will encounter this situation that often).

In the updated version of the proposal [1], I included the ideas stated
before and more information about the procces of benchmarking. In
addition, to test my capabilities and to be sure that I am able to work
on a project of this kind, I tried to convert “git stash list” into a
built-in (the code can be found in proposal). 

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TtdD7zgUsEOszHG5HX1at4zHMDsPmSB
YWqydOPTTpV8/edit

Convert “git stash” to builtin

## Name and Contact Information
--
Hello! My name is Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu. I am currently a first year
Computer Science & Engineering student at Politehnica University of
Bucharest, Romania.

My email address is ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com and my phone
number is [CENSORED]. You can also find me on #git IRC channel as
ungps.

FLOSS manual recommends students to include in their proposal their
postal address and mention a relative as a emergency contact. My
permanent address is [CENSORED]. In case of an emergency, you may
contact my brother, [CENSORED] by email at [CENSORED] or by phone at
[CENSORED].

## Synopsis
--
Currently, many components of Git are still in the form of Shell or
Perl scripts. This choice makes sense especially when considering how
faster new features can be implemented in Shell and Perl scripts,
rather than writing them in C. However, in production, where Git runs
daily on millions of computers with distinct configurations (i.e.
different operating systems) some problems appear (i.e. POSIX-to-
Windows path conversion issues).

The idea of this project is to take “git-stash.sh” and reimplement it
in C. Apart from fixing compatibility issues and increasing the
performance by going one step closer to native code, I believe this is
an excellent excuse to fix long-standing bugs or implement new minor
features.

## Benefits to community
--
The essential benefit brought by rewriting Git commands is the
increased compatibility with a large number computers with distinct
configuration. I believe that this project can have a positive impact
on a large mass of developers around the world. By rewriting the code
behind some popular commands and making them “built-in”, developers
will have a better overall experience when using Git and get to focus
on what really matters to them.

As a side effect, there will be a number of other improvements:
increased performance, ability to

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-22 Thread Alban Gruin

Hi,

here is my second draft of my proposal. As last time, any feedback is
welcome :)

I did not write my phone number and address here for obvious reasons,
but they will be in the “about me” section of the final proposal.

Apart from that, do you think there is something to add?

---
ABSTRACT

git is a modular source control management software, and all of its
subcommands are programs on their own. A lot of them are written in C,
but a couple of them are shell or Perl scripts. This is the case of
git-rebase--interactive (or interactive rebase), which is a shell
script. Rewriting it in C would improve its performance, its
portability, and maybe its robustness.


ABOUT `git-rebase` and `git-rebase--interactive`

git-rebase allows to re-apply changes on top of another branch. For
instance, when a local branch and a remote branch have diverged,
git-rebase can re-unify them, applying each change made on the
local branch on top of the remote branch.

git-rebase--interactive is used to reorganize commits by reordering,
rewording, or squashing them. To achieve this purpose, git opens the
list of commits to be modified in a text editor (hence the
interactivity), as well as the actions to be performed for each of
them.


PROJECT GOALS

The goal of this project is to rewrite git-rebase--interactive in C
as it has been discussed on the git mailing list[1], for multiple
reasons :


Performance improvements
Shell scripts are inherently slow. That’s because each command is a
program by itself. So, for each command, the shell interpreter has to
spawn a new process and to load a new program (with fork() and
exec() syscalls), which is an expensive process.

Those commands can be other git commands. Sometimes, they are
wrappers to call internal C functions (eg. git-rebase--helper),
something shell scripts can’t do natively. These wrappers basically
parse the parameters, then start the appropriate function, which is
obviously slower than just calling a function from C.

Other commands can be POSIX utilities (eg. sed, cut, etc.). They
have their own problems (speed aside), namely portability.

Portability improvements
Shell scripts often relies on many of those POSIX utilities, which are
not necessarily natively available on all platforms (most notably,
Windows), or may have more or less features depending on the
implementation.

Although C is not perfect portability-wise, it’s still better than
shell scripts. For instance, the resulting binaries will not
necessarily depend on third-party programs or libraries.


RISKS

Of course, rewriting a piece of software takes time, and can lead to
regressions (ie. new bugs). To mitigate that risk, I should understand
well the functions I want to rewrite, run tests on a regular basis and
write new if needed, and of course discuss about my code with the
community during reviews.


APPROXIMATIVE TIMELINE

Community bonding -- April 23, 2018 - May 14, 2018
During the community bonding, I would like to dive into git’s
codebase, and to understand what git-rebase--interactive does under
the hood. At the same time, I’d communicate with the community and my
mentor, seeking for clarifications, and asking questions about how
things should or should not be done.

Weeks 1 & 2 -- May 14, 2018 - May 27, 2018
/From May 14 to 18, I have exams at the university, so I won’t be able
to work full time./

I would search for edge cases not covered by current tests and write
some if needed.

Week 3 -- May 28, 2018 - June 3, 2018
At the same time, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own
shell script (as described in Dscho’s email[1]), if it has
not been deprecated or moved in the meantime. This operation is not
really tricky by itself, as --preserve-merges is about only 50 lines
of code into git_rebase__interactive().

Weeks 4 to 7 -- May 4, 2018 - July 1, 2018
Then, I would start to incrementally rewrite
git-rebase--interactive.sh functions in C, and move them
git-rebase--helper.c (as in commits 0cce4a2756[2] (rebase -i
-x: add exec commands via the rebase--helper) and b903674b35[3]
(bisect--helper: `is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell
function in C)).

There is a lot of functions into git-rebase--interactive.sh to
rewrite. Most of them are small, and some of them are even wrappers
for a single command (eg. is_merge_commit()), so they shouldn’t be
really problematic.

A couple of them are quite long (eg. pick_one()), and will probably
be even longer once rewritten in C due to the low-level nature of the
language. They also tend to depend a lot on other smaller functions.

The plan here would be to start rewriting the smaller functions when
applicable (ie. they’re not a simple command wrapper) before
working on the biggest of them.

Week 8 -- July 2, 2018 - July 8, 2018
When all majors functions from git-rebase--interactive.sh have been
rewritten in C, I would retire the script in favor of a builtin.

Weeks 9 & 10 -- July 9, 2018 - July 22, 2018
I plan to spend theses two week

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-21 Thread Johannes Schindelin

Hi Alban,

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Alban Gruin wrote:

> Le mardi 20 mars 2018 17:29:28 CET, vous avez écrit :
> 
> > Also, I have a hunch that there is actually almost nothing left to
> > rewrite after my sequencer improvements that made it into Git v2.13.0,
> > together with the upcoming changes (which are on top of the
> > --recreate-merges patch series, hence I did not send them to the
> > mailing list yet) in
> > https://github.com/dscho/git/commit/c261f17a4a3e
> 
> One year ago, you said[2] that converting this script "will fill up 3
> month, very easily". Is this not accurate anymore?

Let me read that mail ;-)

*goes and reads*

Well, I was talking about two different aspects to Ivan and to you. I
should have been clearer. So let me try again:

To convert `git-rebase--interactive.sh`, I think the most important part
is to factor out the preserve-merges code into its own script. After that,
there is little I can think of (apart from support for --root, which a
not-yet-contributed patch in my sequencer-shears branch on
https://github.com/dscho/git addresses) that still needs to be converted.
For somebody familiar with Git's source code, I would estimate one week
(and therefore 3 weeks would be a realistic estimate :-)).

Come to think of it, a better approach might be to leave the
preserve-merges stuff in, and teach `git-rebase.sh` to call the sequencer
directly for --interactive without --preserve-merges, then rename the
script to git-rebase--preserve.sh

The other aspect, the one I thought would take up to 3 months, easily, was
to convert the entirety of rebase -i into C. That would entail also the
option parsing, for which you would have to convert also git-rebase.sh
(and if you do not convert git-rebase--am.sh and git-rebase--merge.sh
first, you would then have to teach builtin/rebase.c to populate the
environment variables expected by those shell scripts while spawning
them).

I still think that the latter is too big a task for a single GSoC.

> I’ll send a new draft as soon as possible (hopefully this afternoon).

I look forward to reading it!

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-21 Thread Alban Gruin

Hi Johannes,

Le mardi 20 mars 2018 17:29:28 CET, vous avez écrit :
> > Weeks 1 & 2 — May 14, 2018 – May 28, 2018
> > First, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own shell script, as
> > described in Dscho’s email.
> 
> Could you go into detail a bit here? Like, describe what parts of the
> git-rebase--interactive.sh script would need to be duplicated, which ones
> would be truly moved, etc
> 

It would lead to duplicate a good chunk of git_rebase__interactive(), 
apparently. The moved parts would be everything in `if test t = 
"$preserve_merges"; then …; fi` statements. That is, about 50 lines of shell 
code.

Judging by that, beginning by that is probably not the right thing to do. 
Also, somebody is already working on that[1]. 

> > Weeks 3 & 4 — May 18, 2018 – June 11, 2018
> > Then, I would start to rewrite git-rebase--interactive, and get rid of
> > git-
> > rebase--helper.
> 
> I think this is a bit premature, as the rebase--helper would not only
> serve the --interactive part, but in later conversions also --am and
> --merge, and only in the very end, when git-rebase.sh gets converted,
> would we be able to simply rename the rebase--helper to rebase.
> 

Yes, Christian Couder told me that it would not be a good methodology too.

> Also, I have a hunch that there is actually almost nothing left to rewrite
> after my sequencer improvements that made it into Git v2.13.0, together
> with the upcoming changes (which are on top of the --recreate-merges patch
> series, hence I did not send them to the mailing list yet) in
> https://github.com/dscho/git/commit/c261f17a4a3e

One year ago, you said[2] that converting this script "will fill up 3 month, 
very easily". Is this not accurate anymore?

> 
> So I would like to see more details here... ;-)

Yep, I’m working on that. 

> > Weeks 5 to 9 — June 11, 2018 – July 15, 2018
> > During this period, I would continue to rewrite git-rebase--interactive.
> 
> It would be good if the proposal said what parts of the conversion are
> tricky, to merit spending a month on them.
> 
> > Weeks 10 & 11 — July 16, 2018 – July 29, 2018
> > In the second half of July, I would look for bugs in the new code, test
> > it,
> > and improve its coverage.
> 
> As I mentioned in a related mail, the test suite coverage would be most
> sensibly extended *before* starting to rewrite code in C, as it helps
> catching bugs early and avoids having to merge buggy code that needs to be
> fixed immediately.

Makes sense.

> 
> > Weeks 12 — July 30, 2018 – August 5, 2018
> > In the last week, I would polish the code where needed, in order to
> > improve for performance or to make the code more readable.
> 
> Thank you for sharing this draft with us!
> Johannes

I’ll send a new draft as soon as possible (hopefully this afternoon).

Thank you for your enthousiasm :)
Alban

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180320204507.12623-1-w...@saville.com/
[2] https://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.DEB.
2.20.1703231827060.3767@virtualbox/

Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-21 Thread Pratik Karki

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for the feedback. Thanks to you, I realized my proposal was
a bit ambitious. Both git-stash and git-rebase are big
commitment. After much analyzing, I found out I cannot complete
both in the given time frame. So, I decided to stick to one and
complete it. I decided to stick with git-stash. Thank you for directing
me to the un-merged matches. Now, I can find the points where the
patch couldn't be effective and work towards completing those
effective things.

Please provide feedback for this updated proposal.

Cheers,
Pratik Karki


Convert Scripts to builtins
===

Abstract


Many components of Git are still in the form of shell and Perl scripts.
This has certain advantages of being extensible but causes problems in
production code on multiple platforms like Windows.\
I propose to rewrite a couple of shell and perl scripts into portable
and performant C code, making them built-ins. The major advantage of
doing this is improvement in efficiency and performance.

Much more scripts like `git-am` , `git-pull`, `git-branch` have already
been rewritten in C. Much more scripts like `git-rebase`, `git-stash`,
`git-add --interactive` are still present in shell and perl scripts. I
propose to work in `git-stash`.

### Shell Scripts:

Although shell scripts are more faster can be extensible in
functionality and can be more easier to write, they introduce certain
disadvantages.

1.  Dependencies:\
 The scripting languages and shell scripts make more productive code
but there is an overhead of dependencies. The shell scripts are
lighter and simpler and call other executables to perform
non-trivial tasks. Taking `git-stash` shell script for example.
`sed`, `rm`, `echo`, `test` are constantly present in `git-stash`.
These look common to POSIX platforms but for non-POSIX platforms
there needs some extra work for porting these commands. For example,
in Git for Windows, the workaround for these commands in non-POSIX
platform adds some extra utilities and adds MSYS2 shell commands and
needs to pack language runtime for Perl. This increases the
installation size and requires more disk space. Again, adding more
batteries again needs implementation in all of the dependency
libraries and executables.

2.  Inefficiency:\
 Git has internal caches for configuration values, the repository
index and repository objects. The porcelain commands do not have
access to git's internal API and so they spawn git processes to
perform git operations. For every git invocation, git would re-read
the user's configuration files, repository index, repopulate the
filesystem cache, etc. This leads to overhead and unnecessary I/O.
Windows is known to have worse I/O performance compared to Linux.
There is also slower I/O performance of HDD compared to SSD. This
unnecessary I/O operations causes runtime overhead and becomes
slower in poor I/O performance setups. Now, writing the porcelain
into C built-ins leverages the git API and there is no need of
spawning separate git processes, caching can be used to reduce
unnecessary I/O processes.

3.  Spawing processes is less performant:\
 Shell scripts usually spawn a lot of processes. Shell scripts are
very lighter and hence have limited functionalites. For
`git-stash.sh` to work it needs to perform lots of git operations
like `git rev-parse` `git config` and thus spawns git executable
processes for performing these operations. Again for invoking
`git config` and providing configuration values, it spawn new
processes to handle that. Spawning is implemented by `fork()` and
`exec()` by shells. Now, on systems that do not support
copy-on-write semantics for `fork()`, there is duplication of the
memory of the parent process for every `fork()` call which turns out
to be an expensive process. Now, in Windows, Git uses MSYS2
exclusively to emulate `fork()` but since, Windows doesnot support
forking semantics natively, the workaround provided by MSYS2
emulates `fork()` without [copy-on-write
semantics](https://www.cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.api.fork). Doing this
creates another layer over Windows processes and thus slows git.

Rewriting C built-ins
-

These above mentioned problems need to be fixed. The only fix for these
problems would be to write built-ins in C for all these shell scripts
leveraging the git API. Writing in built-in reduces the dependency
required by shell scripts. Since, Git is native executable in Windows,
doing this can make MSYS2 POSIX emulation obsolete. Then, using git's
internal API and C data types, built-in `git_config_get_value()` can be
used to get configuration value rather than spawning another git-config
process. This removes the necessary to re-read git configuration cache
everytime and reduces I/O. Furthermore, git-stash will be more faster
and show

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-20 Thread Christian Couder

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
 wrote:
>
> * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of this
> project.

Could you explain a bit more how you would convert a function? Or
could you explain for example how you would convert "git stash list"
below?

> * Ensure that no regression occurred: considering that there are plenty
> of tests and that I have a good understanding of the function, this
> should be a trivial task.
>
> * Finally write more tests to ensure best code coverage.

Maybe, as Dscho suggested to another potential GSoC student, it would
be better to write more tests before converting the function.

> # Useful resources
> There has been a lot of progress made in this direction already and I
> believe it will serve of great help. However, from my understanding it
> is not yet mergeable and it requires changes.
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20170608005535.13080-1-j...@teichroeb.net/
> T/#m8849c7ce0ad8516cc206dd6910b79591bf9b3acd

Maybe you should Cc the author of this patch series.

Also please notice that the patch series started with adding some tests.

> I am expecting to submit a patch for every command that is converted.
> This way, I have well set milestones and results will be seen as soon
> as possible. Moreover, seeing my contributions getting merged will be a
> huge confidence boost to myself.

> Each “convert” phase of the project below is not only about converting
> from Shell to C, but also ensuring that everything is documented, there
> are enough tests and there are no regressions.
>
> 14th May - 20th May - Convert "git stash list"

For example could you explain a bit more which functions/commands you
would create in which file and how you would call them to convert `git
stash list`

[GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

2018-03-20 Thread Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu

Hello,

I have completed the first draft of my proposal for the Google Summer
of Code, which can be found at [1] or below for those who prefer the
text version.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TtdD7zgUsEOszHG5HX1at4zHMDsPmSBYWqy
dOPTTpV8/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards,
Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu

# Convert “git stash” to builtin

# Name and Contact Information
Hello! My name is Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu. I am currently a first year
Computer Science & Engineering student at Politehnica University of
Bucharest, Romania.

My email address is ungureanupaulsebast...@gmail.com and my phone
number is [CENSORED]. You can also find me on #git IRC channel as
ungps.

FLOSS manual recommends students to include in their proposal their
postal address and mention a relative as a emergency contact. My
permanent address is [CENSORED]. In case of an emergency, you may
contact my brother, [CENSORED] by email at [CENSORED] or by phone at
[CENSORED].

# Synopsis
Currently, many components of Git are still in the form of Shell or
Perl scripts. This choice makes sense especially when considering how
faster new features can be implemented in Shell and Perl scripts,
rather than writing them in C. However, in production, where Git runs
daily on millions of computers with distinct configurations (i.e.
different operating systems) some problems appear (i.e. POSIX-to-
Windows path conversion issues).

The idea of this project is to take “git-stash.sh” and reimplement it
in C. Apart from fixing compatibility issues and increasing the
performance by going one step closer to native code, I believe this is
an excellent excuse to fix long-standing bugs or implement new minor
features.

# Benefits to community
The essential benefit brought by rewriting Git commands is the
increased compatibility with a large number computers with distinct
configuration. I believe that this project can have a positive impact
on a large mass of developers around the world. By rewriting the code
behind some popular commands and making them “built-in”, developers
will have a better overall experience when using Git and get to focus
on what really matters to them.

As a side effect, there will be a number of other improvements:
increased performance, ability to rethink the design of some code that
suffered from patching along the time, have the chance to create new
features and fix old bugs.

In theory, switching from Bash or Shell scripts, Git will be one step
closer to native code which should have a positive impact on the
performance. Being able to start from a clean slate is a great
opportunity to rethink old designs that may have been patched a lot
during their lifetime. This way, with the help of my mentors, I can
think of new ways to try and remove some limitations of the current
system (if there are any).

Moreover, I believe that the community will benefit greatly from new
features and bug fixes that I could help with. Even though this is not
really one of the main goals of this project, I believe that it would
be easier to fix bugs or implement new features while rewriting the
code. However, I will have to discuss with my mentors and carefully
review issues as I would not want to divagate from the purpose of the
project.

As a last point, I believe it is good to have a more homogenous
codebase, where the majority of the code would be written in C. This
could increase the number of contributions to the project as there are
maybe more programmers who are familiar with C, and not so much with
Perl or shell scripting.

# Deliverables
Deliverable of this project is “git stash” completely rewritten in
portable C code. Along with the new code, there will be some additions
and changes brought to tests to cover any new behaviour.

# Related work
Looking over the list of the other proposed projects, I believe that
“Convert interactive rebase to C” and “git bisect improvements” are the
most alike with this project and may be stretch goal of this project.

Moreover, there is a chance that other scripts could benefit from this
project if it were to be taken as an example for future conversions.

# Biographical information
I am a freshman at Politehnica University of Bucharest, which is
considered to be one of the most prestigious universities in the
Eastern Europe. I consider myself an ambitious software engineer that
enjoys competition. This has been proven by my participation to
programming competitions and extracurricular projects. As much as I
like competitions, I also love working with and meeting people that
share my interests for programming and technology.

Even though, in the last two years I found myself to be more interested
in Android software development rather than competitive programming, I
still take part in most of the competitions, such as contests organized
by Google HashCode, Google KickStart and ACM.

I have a good grasp of programming languages such as C and C++ and I
consider both of

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-20 Thread Johannes Schindelin

Hi Alban,

thank you for your proposal!

I will only comment on the parts that I feel could use improvement, the
rest is fine by me.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Alban Gruin wrote:

> APPROXIMATIVE TIMELINE
> 
> Community bonding — April 23, 2018 – May 14, 2018
> During the community bonding, I would like to dive into git’s codebase,
> and to understand what git-rebase--interactive does under the hood. At
> the same time, I’d communicate with the community and my mentor, seeking
> for clarifications, and asking questions about how things should or
> should not be done.
> 
> Weeks 1 & 2 — May 14, 2018 – May 28, 2018
> First, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own shell script, as
> described in Dscho’s email.

Could you go into detail a bit here? Like, describe what parts of the
git-rebase--interactive.sh script would need to be duplicated, which ones
would be truly moved, etc

> Weeks 3 & 4 — May 18, 2018 – June 11, 2018
> Then, I would start to rewrite git-rebase--interactive, and get rid of git-
> rebase--helper.

I think this is a bit premature, as the rebase--helper would not only
serve the --interactive part, but in later conversions also --am and
--merge, and only in the very end, when git-rebase.sh gets converted,
would we be able to simply rename the rebase--helper to rebase.

Also, I have a hunch that there is actually almost nothing left to rewrite
after my sequencer improvements that made it into Git v2.13.0, together
with the upcoming changes (which are on top of the --recreate-merges patch
series, hence I did not send them to the mailing list yet) in
https://github.com/dscho/git/commit/c261f17a4a3e

So I would like to see more details here... ;-)

> Weeks 5 to 9 — June 11, 2018 – July 15, 2018
> During this period, I would continue to rewrite git-rebase--interactive.

It would be good if the proposal said what parts of the conversion are
tricky, to merit spending a month on them.

> Weeks 10 & 11 — July 16, 2018 – July 29, 2018
> In the second half of July, I would look for bugs in the new code, test it, 
> and improve its coverage.

As I mentioned in a related mail, the test suite coverage would be most
sensibly extended *before* starting to rewrite code in C, as it helps
catching bugs early and avoids having to merge buggy code that needs to be
fixed immediately.

> Weeks 12 — July 30, 2018 – August 5, 2018
> In the last week, I would polish the code where needed, in order to
> improve for performance or to make the code more readable.

Thank you for sharing this draft with us!
Johannes

Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-20 Thread Johannes Schindelin

Hi Pratik,

thank you so much for posting this inline, to make it easier to review.

I will quote only on specific parts below; Please just assume that I like
the other parts and have nothing to add.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Pratik Karki wrote:

> 
> Timeline and Development Cycle
> --
> 
> -   Apr 23: Accepted student proposals announced.
> -   Apr 23 onwards: Researching of all the test suites. Discussion of
> possible test improvements in for `git-stash` and `git-rebase`.
> -   May 1: Rewriting skeleton begins.

I would have liked more detail here. Like, maybe even a rudimentary
initial version identifying, say, a part of `git stash` and/or `git
rebase` that could be put into a builtin (stash--helper and
rebase--helper, respectively).

It is my experience from several GSoCs working on this huge overarching
project to convert the scripts (which are good prototypes, but lack in
stringency in addition to performance) to C that even the individual
scripts are too much to stem for a single GSoC.

> -   May 13: Making `builtin/stash.c` ready for review process. (This
> goes on for some time.)

There have been two past efforts to turn stash into a builtin:

https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/508

and

https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-j...@teichroeb.net/

It would be good to read up on those and incorporate the learnings into
the proposal.

> -   May 26: Making `builtin/rebase.c` ready for review process. (This
> goes on for some time.)

The `git-rebase.sh` script is itself not terribly interesting, as it hands
off to `git-rebase--am.sh`, `git-rebase--interactive.sh` and
`git-rebase--merge.sh`, respectively.

Converting `git-rebase` into a builtin without first converting all of
those scripts would make little sense.

It would probably be better to choose one of those latter scripts and move
their functionality into a builtin, in an incremental fashion.

By doing it incrementally, you can also avoid...

> -   June 10: Make second versions with more improvements and more
> batteries ready for next review cycle.

... leaving two weeks between checkpoints. Also, doing it incrementally
lets you avoid sitting on your hands while waiting for the first patches
to be reviewed.

> -   June 20: Writing new tests and using more code-coverage tools to
> squash bugs present.

Typically it helps a lot to have those tests *during* the conversion.
That's how I found most of the bugs when converting difftool, for example.

> -   June 25 - Jul 20: Start optimizing `builtin/stash.c` and
> `builtin/rebase.c`. Benchmarking and profiling is done. They are
> exclusively compared to their original shell scripts, to check
> whether they are more performant or not and the results are
> published in the mailing list for further discussion.

Could you add details how you would perform benchmarking and profiling?

> -   Jul 20 - Aug 5: More optimizing and polishing of `builtin/stash.c`
> and `builtin/rebase.c` and running of new tests series written and
> send them for code review.
> -   Aug 14: Submit final patches.
> -   Aug 22: Results announced.
> -   Apr 24 - Aug 14: Documentation is written. "What I'm working on" is
> written and posted in my blog regarding GSoC with Git.

The timeline is a bit ambitious. I would like to caution you that these
are all big tasks, and maybe you want to cut down on the deliverables, and
add more detail what exactly you want to deliver (such as: what part of
stash/rebase do you find under-tested in our test suite and would
therefore want to augment, what parts of stash/rebase do you think you
would handle first, and how?).

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-20 Thread Pratik Karki

Hi,
This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtins" for GSoC.
Please review and provide feedback.


Cheers,
Pratik Karki


Convert Scripts to builtins
===

Abstract


Many components of Git are still in the form of shell and Perl scripts.
This has certain advantages of being extensible but causes problems in
production code on multiple platforms like Windows.
I propose to rewrite a couple of shell and perl scripts into portable
and performant C code, making them built-ins. The major advantage of
doing this is improvement in efficiency and performance.

Much more scripts like `git-am` , `git-pull`, `git-branch` have already
been rewritten in C. Much more scripts like `git-rebase`, `git-stash`,
`git-add --interactive` are still present in shell and perl scripts.
I propose to work in `git-rebase` and `git-stash`.

Shell Scripts:
--

Although shell scripts are more faster can be extensible in
functionality and can be more easier to write, they introduce certain
disadvantages.

1.  Dependencies:
 The scripting languages and shell scripts make more productive code
but there is an overhead of dependencies. The shell scripts are
lighter and simpler and call other executables to perform
non-trivial tasks. Taking `git-stash` shell script for example.
`sed`, `rm`, `echo`, `test` are constantly present in `git-stash`.
These look common to POSIX platforms but for non-POSIX platforms
there needs some extra work for porting these commands. For example,
in Git for Windows, the workaround for these commands in non-POSIX
platform adds some extra utilities and adds MSYS2 shell commands and
needs to pack language runtime for Perl. This increases the
installation size and requires more disk space. Again, adding more
batteries again needs implementation in all of the dependency
libraries and executables.

2.  Inefficiency:
 Git has internal caches for configuration values, the repository
index and repository objects. The porcelain commands do not have
access to git's internal API and so they spawn git processes to
perform git operations. For every git invocation, git would re-read
the user's configuration files, repository index, repopulate the
filesystem cache, etc. This leads to overhead and unnecessary I/O.
Windows is known to have worse I/O performance compared to Linux.
There is also slower I/O performance of HDD compared to SSD. This
unnecessary I/O operations causes runtime overhead and becomes
slower in poor I/O performance setups. Now, writing the porcelain
into C built-ins leverages the git API and there is no need of
spawning separate git processes, caching can be used to reduce
unnecessary I/O processes.

3.  Spawing processes is less performant:
 Shell scripts usually spawn a lot of processes. Shell scripts are
very lighter and hence have limited functionalites. For
`git-stash.sh` to work it needs to perform lots of git operations
like `git rev-parse` `git config` and thus spawns git executable
processes for performing these operations. Again for invoking
`git config` and providing configuration values, it spawn new
processes to handle that. Spawning is implemented by `fork()` and
`exec()` by shells. Now, on systems that do not support
copy-on-write semantics for `fork()`, there is duplication of the
memory of the parent process for every `fork()` call which turns out
to be an expensive process. Now, in Windows, Git uses MSYS2
exclusively to emulate `fork()` but since, Windows doesnot support
forking semantics natively, the workaround provided by MSYS2
emulates `fork()` without [copy-on-write
semantics](https://www.cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.api.fork). Doing this
creates another layer over Windows processes and thus slows git.

Rewriting C built-ins
-

These above mentioned problems need to be fixed. The only fix for these
problems would be to write built-ins in C for all these shell scripts
leveraging the git API. Writing in built-in reduces the dependency
required by shell scripts. Since, Git is native executable in Windows,
doing this can make MSYS2 POSIX emulation obsolete. Then, using git's
internal API and C data types, built-in `git_config_get_value()` can be
used to get configuration value rather than spawning another git-config
process. This removes the necessary to re-read git configuration cache
everytime and reduces I/O. Furthermore, git-stash and git-rebase will be
more faster and show consistent behaviour as instead of spawing another
process and parsing command-line arguments manually, they can be
hardcoded to be built-in and leverage all the required git's internal
API's like `parse-options`.

To implement git-stash and git-rebase in C, I propose to avoid spawning
lots of external git processes and reduce redundant I/O by taking
advantage of th

Re: [RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-20 Thread Christian Couder

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Pratik Karki <predatoram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtin" for GSoC.
> Please review and provide feedbacks.
>
> https://gist.github.com/prertik/daaa73a39d3ce30811d9a208043dc235

It would be easier for us to comment if the markdown was sent inline.

Thanks,
Christian.

[RFC] [GSoC] Project proposal: convert scripts to builtins

2018-03-20 Thread Pratik Karki

Hi,
This is my draft for my proposal on "Convert Scripts to builtin" for GSoC.
Please review and provide feedbacks.

https://gist.github.com/prertik/daaa73a39d3ce30811d9a208043dc235

Cheers,
Pratik Karki

Investment Proposal

2018-03-18 Thread FARDEL Anastasia

Hello

Greetings to you and everyone around you please did you get my previous email 
regarding my proposal ?
please let me know if we can work together on this.

Best Reagrds
Melisa Mehmet

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-17 Thread Christian Couder

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Alban Gruin <alban.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Weeks 3 & 4 — May 18, 2018 – June 11, 2018
> Then, I would start to rewrite git-rebase--interactive, and get rid of git-
> rebase--helper.

Usually to rewrite a shell script in C, we first rewrite shell
functions into option arguments in a C builtin helper and make the
schell script call the builtin helper (instead of the original shell
functions). Eventually when the shell script is mostly only calling
the builtin helper, we add what is needed into the builtin helper and
we rename it to make it fully replace the shell script.

See for example 0cce4a2756 (rebase -i -x: add exec commands via the
rebase--helper, 2017-12-05) or b903674b35 (bisect--helper:
`is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell function in C,
2017-09-29). These examples show that we can do step by step rewrites.

I would suggest planning to use the same approach, and describing in
your proposal which shell functions you would like to rewrite into the
C builtin helper in which order, before planning to fully replace the
current git-rebase--interactive.

Thanks,
Christian.

[RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

2018-03-17 Thread Alban Gruin

Hi,

here is my first draft of my proposal for the GSoC, about the "convert
interactive rebase to C" project. Any feedback is welcome :)

---
ABSTRACT
git is a modular source control management software, and all of its
subcommands are programs on their own. A lot of them are written in C, but a
couple of them are shell or Perl scripts. This is the case of git-rebase--
interactive (or interactive rebase), which is a shell script. Rewriting it in
C would improve its performance, its portability, and maybe its robustness.

ABOUT `git-rebase{,--interactive}`

git-rebase allows to re-apply changes on top of another branch. For instance,
when a local branch and a remote branch have diverged, git-rebase can re-unify
them, applying each change made on the local branch on top of the remote
branch.

git-rebase--interactive is used to reorganize commits by reordering,
rewording, or squashing them. To achieve this purpose, git opens the list of
commits to be modified in a text editor (hence the interactivity), as well as
the actions to be performed for each of them.

PROJECT GOALS

The goal of this project is to rewrite git-rebase--interactive in C as it has
been discussed on the git mailing list[1], for multiple reasons :

Performance improvements
Shell scripts are inherently slow. That’s because each command is a program by
itself. So, for each command, the shell interpreter has to spawn a new process
and to load a new program.

Those commands can be other git commands. Sometimes, they are wrappers to call
internal C functions (eg. git-rebase--helper), something shell scripts can’t
do natively. These wrappers basically parse the parameters, then start the
appropriate function, which is
obviously slower than just calling a function from C.

Other commands can be POSIX utilities (eg. sed, cut, etc.). They have their
own problems (speed aside), namely portability.

Portability improvements
Shell scripts often relies on many of those POSIX utilities, which are not
necessarily natively available on all platforms (most notably, Windows), or
may have more or less features depending on the implementation.

APPROXIMATIVE TIMELINE

Community bonding — April 23, 2018 – May 14, 2018
During the community bonding, I would like to dive into git’s codebase, and to
understand what git-rebase--interactive does under the hood. At the same time,
I’d communicate with the community and my mentor, seeking for clarifications,
and asking questions about how things should or should not be done.

Weeks 1 & 2 — May 14, 2018 – May 28, 2018
First, I would refactor --preserve-merges in its own shell script, as
described in Dscho’s email.

Weeks 3 & 4 — May 18, 2018 – June 11, 2018
Then, I would start to rewrite git-rebase--interactive, and get rid of git-
rebase--helper.

Weeks 5 to 9 — June 11, 2018 – July 15, 2018
During this period, I would continue to rewrite git-rebase--interactive.

Weeks 10 & 11 — July 16, 2018 – July 29, 2018
In the second half of July, I would look for bugs in the new code, test it,
and improve its coverage.

Weeks 12 — July 30, 2018 – August 5, 2018
In the last week, I would polish the code where needed, in order to improve
for performance or to make the code more readable.

ABOUT ME

My name is Alban Gruin, I am an undergraduate at the Paul Sabatier University
in Toulouse, France, where I have been studying Computer Sciences for the past
year and a half. My timezone currently is UTC+01:00, but will be UTC+02:00
starting from March 25th, because of the daylight saving time in Europe.

I have been programming in C for the last 5 years. I learned using freely
available resources online, and by attending class ever since last year.

I am also quite familiar with shell scripts, and I have been using git for the
last 3 years.

My e-mail address is alban gruin gmail com. My IRC nick is
abngrn.

My micro-project was "userdiff: add built-in pattern for golang"[2][3].

---

You can find the Google Doc version here[4].

Regards,
Alban Gruin

[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.DEB.2.20.1609021432070.129229@virtualbox/
[2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180228172906.30582-1-alban.gr...@gmail.com/
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/commit/?id=1dbf0c0a
[4]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jx0w867tVAht7QI1_prieiXg_iQ_nTloOyaIIOnm85g/edit?usp=sharing

Re: man gittutorial: patch proposal

2018-03-07 Thread kalle

hello.
1.I understood, that verbose commands are quoted in ` ' or ' '. While
the points I changed are not verbose commands. Therefore I didn't see
any sense in them. Because of the different quoting ways (e.g. `merge`),
I thought that someone didn't understand the quoting concept. But it
could also be me...

2.yes please. I will read this section.

kalle

Am 06.03.2018 um 00:25 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> Hi,
> 
> kalle wrote:
> 
>> see attachment.
> 
> Thanks for writing.  A few questions:
> 
>  1. Can you say a little more about the rationale for this change?
> E.g. is the current formatting sending a confusing message?  Is the
> current formatting intending to use '' as quotes and using italics
> instead?  If so, should this use "" to fix it?
> 
>  2. May we forge your sign-off? See the section "Certify your work"
> in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more about what this means.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>

Re: man gittutorial: patch proposal

2018-03-05 Thread Jonathan Nieder

Hi,

kalle wrote:

> see attachment.

Thanks for writing.  A few questions:

 1. Can you say a little more about the rationale for this change?
E.g. is the current formatting sending a confusing message?  Is the
current formatting intending to use '' as quotes and using italics
instead?  If so, should this use "" to fix it?

 2. May we forge your sign-off? See the section "Certify your work"
in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more about what this means.

Thanks,
Jonathan

man gittutorial: patch proposal

2018-03-05 Thread kalle

see attachment.
greetings,
kalle
>From ed466d29733a14acf3b2071d3d35aa829e09b1d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kalledaballe 
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:53:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] I corrected some few quotation mistakes

---
 Documentation/gittutorial.txt | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/gittutorial.txt b/Documentation/gittutorial.txt
index 242de31..d04f8ac 100644
--- a/Documentation/gittutorial.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gittutorial.txt
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ her work-in-progress on top of the resulting history.
 
 When you are working in a small closely knit group, it is not
 unusual to interact with the same repository over and over
-again.  By defining 'remote' repository shorthand, you can make
+again.  By defining remote repository shorthand, you can make
 it easier:
 
 
@@ -406,8 +406,8 @@ could merge the changes into her master branch:
 alice$ git merge bob/master
 -
 
-This `merge` can also be done by 'pulling from her own remote-tracking
-branch', like this:
+This merge can also be done by pulling from her own remote-tracking
+branch, like this:
 
 -
 alice$ git pull . remotes/bob/master
-- 
2.1.4

Proposal

Hello

Greetings to you and everyone around you please did you get my previous email 
regarding my proposal ?
please let me know if we can work together on this.

Best Reagrds

Proposal

Hello

Greetings to you and everyone around you please did you get my previous email 
regarding my proposal ?
please let me know if we can work together on this.

Best Reagrds

Proposal

Hello

Greetings to you and everyone around you please did you get my previous email 
regarding my proposal ?
please let me know if we can work together on this.

Best Reagrds

Proposal

Hello

Greetings to you and everyone around you please did you get my previous email 
regarding my proposal ?
please let me know if we can work together on this.

Best Reagrds

Proposal