Sorry everyone for being this persistent. But want to lay out some pointers to you all.
I see that you will not even speak to me. And you are going a bit far to justify yourself.
1.In addition to you will not survive 2 evaluation. He also said he will not review the code because he feels mental exhaustion/burned out. Leave that task to co-mentor.
I said exactly this:
"@d78ui98 I will wait until the end of the week, before sending the first evaluation, to make sure that you also finish the pending tasks from the past weeks. You also started a week later, so it is Ok to be a bit late.
You are a very nice guy, with a very good attitude, but I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with your performance so far. Maybe there is nothing that you can do about it (if you are already doing your best, then you cannot do better). Maybe there is something wrong with me. The problem is that I am burned out, my patience has come to an end, and I cannot continue like this anymore.
So, after the first evaluation I will give up checking your commits and trying to correct you. I hope that @akash0x53 will step forward in order to continue mentoring you the way that he thinks is best for achieving the objectives of the project. I may still continue to contribute with requirements and I will check that the objectives are met at the end of the second and third evaluation terms.
I hope this will be the best for everyone."
You know that I said "I am burned out" because you forced me to spend on the project more time that you did,
and this is not right because a mentor is a volunteer, the student is being paid for the task. This was so because you never
tested your code properly, always relying on me to to do the testing for you and to point out the bugs/problems.
Then you expected me to show you the solution because you couldn't do it, and after you did the fix, I had to correct
you several times because you never did it right. Which mentor would have been so patient with you?
It remembers me the saying: "I help you once and you say thank you. The second time you think that I am obliged to help you."
Despite saying that I would give up, I still continued to help you because Akash asked me to continue,
since he could not do it alone.
2. Also he did not test the code. Leave that task to the community(just by dropping mail need help with testing)
Not testing properly and adequately was the reason why you risked to fail on the first evaluation.
I have made it clear and insisted many times that you do it properly, and that this is crucial.
Let me quote two of these messages:
On Jul 8:
"Deepanshu, please finish first: exhaustive testing, identifying problems, and fixing them.
Then continue with auto-vagrant-boxes with packer, and submitting DebianEdu packages.
Next you can work on guest account and autologin.
Only if there is time left, you can start to look at docker-scripts (but I think you may not have time for it this week).
I don't see you report any problems, which means that you have not done any proper testing yet. This task (exhaustive testing) was supposed to be done several weeks ago. I have been asking you repeatedly to do proper testing, but this is the last time that I mention it. If you fail to do it properly until the end of the project, then you are going to fail in the last evaluation, no matter what else you do on the other tasks. Be careful about this."
On Jul 11:
"Deepanshu, let me make my expectations clear for the third period.
Building ltsp-docker is optional. If you have time to start working on it, but cannot finish it, that's OK. If you don't have time to start it at all, no problem. I will still give you a pass.
However the rest of the tasks are required (except those that are marked as optional). In particular, making sure that everything works as expected on all the test cases is a must, is a red line. If you fail to do this properly by the end of the project, you cannot pass the evaluation.
I think there is plenty of time to finish all the remaining tasks, so don't rush, take it easy, do things slowly but do them well."
3. He breaks few rules given the official GSoC guideline.
4. When a student asks for help just say he is busy with vacation and will not be able to test code.
5. Still expect "extremely perfect code" from the student.
6. Then fail in the final evaluation and simply say "try next time try selecting a better mentor". Instead, him being a better one this time.
You did not fail for not doing "extremely perfect code".
You failed for not doing proper testing, finding the problems and reporting them.
I am not including here fixing them, although the fix of most of them was very simple
and you could have done it easily (if something was difficult for you to fix, me
and Akash could have helped you, as always).
Testing, finding problems and reporting them is such an easy task that even a high school
student could have done it, especially since there were clear instructions on how to test,
what were the test cases, etc. But you somehow failed to do it or did not want to do it.
Maybe because you were convinced that testing was my duty not your job.
Have all mentor interact with their students like this?
Can some experienced mentor tell who was wrong?
What should the student do in this case?
Did any other students have experience similar to this?
I don't care about the mud that you through at me, even after helping you so much,
but I care about the opinion of a few people on these lists whom I respect.
Dashamir