On Monday, 22 July 2019 at 14:03:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Francesco Mecca ha written an experience report for the D Blog
about his SAOC 2018 project, porting Leandro Lucarella's old GC
from D1 to D2.
The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/wp-admin/post.php?post=2148&action=edit
Reddit:
>
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cgdk1r/symmetry_autumn_of_code_experience_report_porting/
A pull request to the D runtime was my final milestone. I was
ready at the beginning of February, but I started to
procrastinate. I’d had no previous communication with any of the
reviewers and I was timorous about engaging with them. I spent a
lot of time refactoring my code back and forth and delaying my
pull request. At a certain point, I even considered abandoning
the final milestone and providing the GC as a library. In the
meantime, Rainer Scheutze published a threaded implementation of
the mark phase that reduced the mark time in the GC and I lost
faith in my project.
This seems like a major failure in the process that this was
allowed to happen - good work almost went abandoned. How can we
prevent this in future SAoC/GSoC? Without knowing what the mentor
did/didn't do, an obvious answer seems like there should be a
follow-up to ensure that the work done is actually getting in to
the compiler/runtime/etc. To go so far and trip right at the
finish line is unfortunate (glad to see that a PR is now open).
