Re: GSoC: Sysinst enhancements proposal

[Eugene Lozovoy <uzix.ls%gmail.com@localhost>]

Martin Husemann (martin%duskware.de@localhost) @ Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:26:53 +0200 
wrote:

> For the rest, it seems to me we should clearly separate "reimplement
> sysinst with a different architecture" projects from "enhance
> exisiting sysinst" projects. The original project proposal, and the
> student proposal as I read it, are in the latter category. Your
> question more aim at the former type of project.
> 
> Both types of project proposals are fine, but we should be clear about
> which one we are talking here. Anything that involves re-architecting
> sysinst and promissing a result feature-equivalent to the current
> sysinst will be hard to do within GSoC timeframe.

My main goal is enhance existing sysints. Also, mbalmer didn't share
patches and that means that sysinst refactoring postponed for some time.
Anyway, I want to continue my work after GSoC completion.

With best regards,
Eugene