From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp-29.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D47813858D1E for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:40:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D47813858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orange.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=orange.fr Received: from [192.168.1.16] ([86.215.161.51]) by smtp.orange.fr with ESMTPA id 9Mz0qJYUSCbeM9Mz6qk6Y3; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:40:14 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.fr; s=t20230301; t=1686735614; bh=KbewSLZVOziwc8iA4lr9SugAQuLg41F9Xx/LB1p9DQI=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=RAh7Q0N++U96dPlOC107R2PydOnS5N3KNWPWpUlZuLRCpfhiTK6C1wL24VaWSj4FY ej2rGvUoCvRC0Xs/8KX1FLEW7y51ErFlnFRl7N6oLviKBw10vSI+Zs8G2z8lx2M7ZH 8j/B2VRgVR4qMhVp8johnxaC+uBWb95Vm9aX3ZOKnURobZYpxareudQYdbFc65Jymc PzI893eKJ1wrl130fdQqS2qwy8U4anPrzQnL62FD3TXn5tr8F1HIWSDs7Gra8ram7C GToAlYqkYyJIqIZgtczCC15D6lI07kTz+cmNBv0XMmLaHJ8lgC7j33IIQ2CewHE4L1 lk5ilVn/wEmxw== X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.16] X-ME-Auth: bW9yaW4tbWlrYWVsQG9yYW5nZS5mcg== X-ME-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:40:14 +0200 X-ME-IP: 86.215.161.51 Message-ID: <5fc1554e-a9e0-0e52-1f1a-8db0384ecf3a@orange.fr> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:40:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: Possible funding of gfortran work To: Andre Vehreschild Cc: Damian Rouson , Thomas Koenig , Benson Muite , Jerry D , Paul Richard Thomas , GCC-Fortran-ML , Lexi Pimenidis , =?UTF-8?Q?Nicolas_K=c3=b6nig?= References: <4697f7be-ac3e-8c5d-f27c-3aec89b5b03f@protonmail.com> <0d923990-0b7a-a1ea-8389-bf3837e73ed0@gmail.com> <737bbf36-04a8-c1e4-b3aa-31121df66013@netcologne.de> <20230527132414.50184389@vepi2> <105c761a-5030-aee5-6587-2783a794f469@gmail.com> <20230530153242.54728d4d@vepi2> <2fa3240f-fbb8-23b6-2a10-24f9a415f729@netcologne.de> <5bde7c1f-3524-7f2e-fd48-a4b97734e2b9@emailplus.org> <2f95809c-8f0b-7d75-ca62-aeee11c6bee0@netcologne.de> <20230531142302.75ec742d@vepi2> <20230601111808.5ed7a9e3@vepi2> <20230605100825.78c4ac78@vepi2> <20230606150604.7cfbf6ac@vepi2> <74690341-bde3-47f2-8750-26a05578668d@orange.fr> <20230614102812.593b558d@vepi2> Content-Language: en-US From: Mikael Morin In-Reply-To: <20230614102812.593b558d@vepi2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,WINNER_SUBJECT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Le 14/06/2023 à 10:28, Andre Vehreschild a écrit : > Hi Mikael, > > please find my answers inline. > >>> I understand. I would have been happy in the past when a client had as much >>> knowledge and structure than we already have. Under "Project goal" we now >>> have about 300 words. So we could add more. >> Well, It wouldn't be really part of the goal, more how to reach that >> goal. The "timeframe" question is possibly where it should go. Or if >> you consider that the planning is a goal itself, it could be put here. > > The timeframe question accepts only a number. I.e. we can't plan there. > >>> What do you have in mind? >> Something that breaks a big, risky thing to a set of smaller, manageable >> ones. Something showing that the main problems (or some of them at >> least) have been identified and that we have a path to solve them one by >> one. >> >>> Like adding >>> more bullet points to each item in the form of: >>> - rebase existing implementation to current master >>> - identify missing requirements >>> - add tests for missing requirements >>> - implement missing requirements to pass tests. >>> ... >> Well, this is a bit too general to be useful. > > Mhh, I don't suppose that the planning will be evaluated by software > specialist. I therefore propose not to be too technical, but to stay on a > project manager level. So how about we enumerate the bullets so that we then > can put a project/milestone structure under each one like this (PD: person day): > > 1.M1 assess open issues and refine planning (1-3 PDs) > 1.M2 rebase to current master and adapt to recent changes in gfortran (1-3 PDs) > 1.M3 identify missing requirements ... I need input here from Nicolas as I > don't have an overview of what is needed. Therefore I am quite general. > OK, let's wait for Nicolas' input, as it sounds scary as is. Identifying the missing requirements should be done before the submission, and saying that you have to do it as part of the project sounds very much like you don't know where you are going. Same goes for the planning, it should already be clear enough beforehand. I mean, counting the time spent in identifying the requirements etc can be done internally, because it's time spent working, but I think it should not be part of the planning submitted because it's time that will be already spent at the time the application form is submitted. Regarding my own work, there was no additional discussion regarding the different items I proposed, so I will pick the two or three I'm most interested in (additionally to the scalarizer) and try to produce a plan for them as well. >>> Mikael Morin @ ??? -- Maintained/Contributed to the scalarizer. Experienced >>> in gfortran development and component dependencies. >>> >> I'm not affiliated to any company, university or organization. Just >> myself. :-) > > Sorry, I did not mean any insult. I didn't see any insult. I was just trying to answer the three question marks (???). > What do you prefer? "not affiliated" or > "private", ...? > Yes, that's fine. Nothing. Whatever.