[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libredwg] GSOC Project : LibreDWG Decode Refactoring

From: Avneet Kaur
Subject: Re: [libredwg] GSOC Project : LibreDWG Decode Refactoring
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:06:11 +0530

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
<address@hidden> wrote:
> My comments:
> I like it, although I think there's time for doing more during the
> summer. Splitting the files won't take much time, and refactoring
> doesn't make sense when most functionality is incomplete. To be
> honest, a long time after proposing this on the GSoC wiki I'm not
> totally sure about splitting into a few files.

Yes, You are right. First we have to focus on its functionality.
Refactoring is a software maintenance activity, If it's not
performing it's functionality, then how we can maintain it.

But on wiki page, only mention to finish r_2007 decoding.
There is no comment on R_2004 version.
I have checked LibreDWG bugs.
All bugs are because of segmentation fault and I have mentioned the
reason behind this.

> R_2004 and R_2007 support are not fully implemented,

Yeah, I checked it. It throws segmentation fault for these versions.

> although the grounds for it are almost done. Maybe you could change your 
> proposal
> and add those points. I would propose: finish R_2004 support ->
> refactor -> implement R_2007 ->

To complete the decoding of R_2004 and R_2007,
I have to refer ODA specifications.

I would propose: finish R_2004 support ->
> refactor -> implement R_2007 ->

OK. I will add these points to my proposal.

> (if there's still time) implement
> R_2010 which is very very similar to R_2007.

In GSOC time period, R_2010 is not possible, I think.
We have to take care of GSOC timeline.
After GSOC, I will continue as a contributor to LibreDWG.

> Also, the R_2004 and R_2007 decode functions are much better than the
> R13/R14/R2000 one. Maybe there's a half way done.

I have explored it. Focus need more on R_2007 version.

> Second, if by Simian you mean this[0], you shouldn't use it within
> this project. It is non-free software, and we shouldn't promote it.

Also, I have checked there is zero duplicacy in LibreDWG.
No need to use it.
Thanks for pointing.

> Third, please refactor your proposal structure to follow the GNU
> guidelines for GSoC projects[1].
> Fourth, and most importantly, rename your proposal to LibreDWG -
> Decode Refactoring instead of just "Decode Refactoring".

Ok. I will change according to GNU guidelines.

> I think you are qualified, but please improve the focus of your
> proposal.

We can give a new life to LibreDWG together.
Thanks for mentoring.

Avneet Kaur

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]