Another proposal for your critique: improving .NET 3.5

[Roderick Colenbrander]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM, John Koelndorfer <jkoelndorfer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not something within GSOC scope in my opinion, I expect you will
>> need 6 weeks alone to get up to speed with the concepts of msi and patching.
>>
>> In general I think it's better to identify a small set of APIs to implement
>> or improve instead of aiming for a broad goal like "improving .net 3.5",
>> which is hard to quantify and more likely to fail.
>>
>>  -Hans
>
> Thanks for the input, Hans. Looking back at previous GSOC proposals,
> many of them were "Improve x" (see
> http://wiki.winehq.org/SummerOfCode/PreviousProjects).
>
> As far as the issue of quantification, I think it's pretty easy to say
> "if .NET 3.5 installs, that's a success. If applications that require
> .NET 3.5 run (or aren't blocked by anything .NET), that's a success."
> Hell, even if I don't get .NET to install -- so long as I've made
> progress on it and it makes it that much easier for another developer,
> I'd call that a success.
>
> The issue of difficulty is something I've thought about. As I've
> mentioned, I don't have any Wine-specific experience so I am not well
> able to gauge how reasonable a given project is.
>
> I'm hearing very mixed opinions on some of them so I think at this
> point my best bet is to submit several proposals for projects I'm
> interested in and then do my best to see whichever is accepted through
> (if it is even accepted). I remember reading somewhere that as long as
> I work hard, not completely meeting my goals would not be an issue.
> Given that, I'd rather set the bar high as I think that would be
> better motivation.
>
> Again, thanks to everyone for their input. I will submit the proposals
> I have written and will probably write/submit a few more.
>
>

If you want to do something in the .NET area perhaps some work can be
done on Mono integration (see the mono topic Vincent started) and the
wiki (http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono).

Roderick