Re: Proposal for GSoC 2011 - Python based scripting front end for Nemiver

[Seemanta Dutta <seemanta gmail com>]

Thanks for your comments, Dodji. I have edited the proposal within google-melange.com now. Changes include omission of the detailed design step and including the fact that we would be doing iterative, incremental development, with each iteration building on top of the previous one. 

regards,
Seemanta

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Dodji Seketeli <dodji seketeli org> wrote:

Seemanta Dutta <seemanta gmail com> a écrit:

> Thanks a *lot* for replying to my email so promptly!

My pleasure :-)

>> I guess ultimately this means exposing key Nemiver interfaces like
>> IDebugger to the [Python] interpreter's environment.
>>
>
>    Do you want me to edit my proposal and mention this thing about the
> IDebugger within the submitted proposal ?

To be honest I wasn't sure how updating the melange bits was supposed to
happen so I went to ask.

And apparently, you are indeed supposed to update the submitted proposal
as we discuss :-) So yeah, I'd say it'd be good to mention it there
then.

>> Indeed.  Many people have expressed the need of having a command line
>> console in Nemiver.  Maybe that command line console could be written in
>> an interpreted language [like Python] that is exposed to Nemiver's
>> interfaces, like what you are proposing.
>>
>
>     Absolutely! I did not mention about this plain vanilla command line in
> my proposal because I wanted to limit the scope of my project to just the
> python console for now. I think if we design our python console well enough,
> later on providing bindings to pure gdb'ish commands would be simple. What
> do you think ?

Yeah.  I guess if you can manipulate IDebugger and friends from Python
writing a debugging commands interpreter should be a straightforward
[though, maybe long] task :-)

>> Okay.  I take it as the whole timeline is subject to re-arrangement
>> depending on how things turn out to be in practise.
>>
>
>    Of course! Thing might change depending on how they work out in real
> life. I mentioned the schedule just so that we have some framework to follow
> and also the format for the proposal asks for a brief schedule from all
> applicants.
>

No problem.

>>

>> >      *-- Milestone 2* *(May 31 - June 7 )*:  Incorporate the review
>> comments
>> > and start on doing a detailed design for the approved high level
>> > design.
>>
>> I would just skip the detailed design part ;-) Once we agree on what we
>> are aiming for (as in, a set of little incremental deliverables) and the
>> rough high level design of the changes to make to reach those points,
>> I'd go straight to coding :-) If you hit road blocks, we'll amend
>> requirements, design and code, if need be.  If we communicate well, I
>> hope we can just keep the mess inside some walls.
>>
>
>    So are you saying that we don't aim specifically for any high level
> design but rather get it done 'along-the-way', so to speak ?

I was more saying that we'd do away with the *detailed* design document.
The high level one I guess would be interesting to have to at least
roughly know from the beginning in which direction we'd want to go.  But
even then I don't think you should kill yourself over it.

> If so, yes, I agree. But then do you want me to edit my proposal
> within google-melange.comfor this ?

Yes please.

>> >    - *What will showable at mid-term [1]?*
>> >
>> > For midterm I, my plan is to develop an initial prototype with a few of
>> the
>> > important python bindings. This will be more like a proof-of-concept of
>> the
>> > final thing. The initial prototype will have very basic Nemiver
>> > functionalities exposed via python objects and will not include the full
>> > functionality.
>>
>> Sure.  I guess at mid-term we'd be able to show the result of "just one
>> of the iterations".
>>
>>
>     One iteration, seems good. But given that midterm would be half way
> between the final date, I would prefer a couple of iterations, subject to
> the timing constraints, of course. I mean I want the things to be
> proportionate between the midterm and the final evaluations.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you'd show the result of the _first_
iteration.  Rather, the result of one of the number of iterations that
would have happened until the midterm.

> But as you said, we can monitor the pace of the project along the way
> and throttle ourselves as we see fit.

Nod.

>
>
>> Would this way of working make sense to you?
>>
>     Absolutely! I am really grateful for your valuable comments. So
> now, should I go ahead and edit my proposal within google-melange.com
> based on the above comments or do you think leaving it as is would be
> sufficient ?

I think editing the google-melange hosted proposal accordingly would be
appropriate, yes.

Cheers,

--

               Dodji
_______________________________________________
nemiver-list mailing list
nemiver-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nemiver-list