<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//FreeBSD//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional-Based Extension//EN" [
<!ENTITY base CDATA "../..">
<!ENTITY date "$FreeBSD$">
<!ENTITY email 'hackers'>
<!ENTITY title "BSDCon 2003 FreeBSD Developer Summit">
<!ENTITY % navinclude.about "INCLUDE">
<!ENTITY % developers PUBLIC "-//FreeBSD//ENTITIES FreeBSD Developers Entities//EN"> %developers;
]>

<html>
&header;

<p>The fifth FreeBSD Developer Summit was held on September 13, 2003, at
  Vicor's offices in Richmond, CA, immediately following BSDCon 2003
  in San Mateo, CA.  The FreeBSD Developer Summit was sponsored by
  DARPA, NAI Labs, and Vicor.  Notes were taken by Bruce Mah and were
  edited by Murray Stokely.</p>

<p>Meeting began at 10:00am, ended at 5:00pm.</p>

<h2>Agenda</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="#intro">Introduction / Summary of FreeBSD BoF / Growth
  of Project</a></li>
  <li><a href="#re4">Release Engineering, RELENG_4</a></li>
  <li><a href="#re5">Release Engineering, HEAD</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Attending:</h2>

<p>In person:</p>

<ul>
  <li>Doug Barton</li>
  <li>David O'Brien</li>
  <li>Matthew Dillon</li>
  <li>Julian Elischer</li>
  <li>Poul-Henning Kamp</li>
  <li>Greg Lehey</li>
  <li>Scott Long</li>
  <li>Warner Losh</li>
  <li>Bruce Mah</li>
  <li>Jun Kuriyama</li>
  <li>Jonathon Mini</li>
  <li>Masafumi Nakane</li>
  <li>Jeff Roberson</li>
  <li>Hiroki Sato</li>
  <li>Gregory Shapiro</li>
  <li>Murray Stokely</li>
  <li>Jacques Vidrine</li>
  <li>Robert Watson</li>
</ul>

<p>On The Phone:</p>

<p>The meeting followed a format where each section was led by an
  individual and then a discussion ensued.</p>

<div class="topic">
<hr>
<h2>Opening Remarks - Robert Watson</h2>

<p>Welcome to the fifth FreeBSD Developer Summit at BSDCon 2003.
  This event is sponsored by:</p>

<ul>
  <li><span class="sponsor">Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA)</span></li>
  <li><span class="sponsor">NAI Labs, the Security Research Division of
    Network Associates</span></li>
  <li><span class="sponsor">Vicor</span></li>
</ul>

<p>The sponsors covered the cost of the room, food, telephone access,
  etc.</p>

<h3>Growth of the Project (from BoF)</h3>

<p>Positive Netcraft numbers</p>

<p>HEAD activity maintained even when <tt>RELENG_3</tt> came out.</p>

<p>As soon as <tt>RELENG_4</tt> came out, <tt>RELENG_3</tt> activity
dropped dramatically.</p>

<p>Large spike in commits just before
<tt>RELENG_5_0_0_RELEASE</tt>.</p>

<p>About half the number of committers are working on RELENG_4
compared to the HEAD.  Implies that most commits to RELENG_4 really do
go through HEAD first.</p>

<p>Slightly less than half of commits go into <tt>sys/</tt>

<p>Perforce submission rates are about half that of rate in the main
<tt>src/</tt> CVS branch.</p>

<p>"RaidFrame fell victim to a disk error." --scottl</p>

<p><em>(Tentative schedule reviewed)</em></p>


<div class="topic">
<hr>
<a name="re4"></a>
<h2>Release Engineering, RELENG_4 - Murray Stokely</h2>

<p>Complaints about PAE stability.  Definitely need to tweak 4.9
schedule.  Need to get people access to hardware to check stability
under high load.  Really need stability for non-PAE case.</p>

<p>Seems like a 2-week delay.  sam is holding changes for MFC, waiting
for things to settle down.  dg wants the PAE stuff ripped out.  phk
thinks we're going to delay more like 6 weeks before we have
confidence in this.</p>

<h3>Discussion</h3>

<div class="discussion">

<p><strong class="speaker">PHK</strong> : Could we put this in P4?</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">IMP</strong> : Problem is that non-PAE
users (who are having problems) won't have motivation to use it if
it's not in CVS.</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What's minimalist
backout patch?  We need to get more info.  Are PAE developers going to
have time to work on this?  If not, we have to kick it out.</p>

<p>Two-week timeline to get more information for fixing it.  Need to
be able to reproduce it in a developer environment...need information
on workload.</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">peter</strong> : Things that he and ps
would run into this problem pretty quickly.  (Want to get silby in
touch with him.)</p>

<p>
"I'll just tell Paul that the next snapshot he makes has an unknown
bug causing instability and he'll just go crazy trying to fix it."
--peter.</p>

</div>
</div>

<div class="topic">
<hr>
<a name="re5"></a>
<h2>Release Engineering, HEAD - Scott Long</h2>

<p>"Somebody get him some tissues so he can cry without shorting out his
laptop."  --peter.</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">scottl</strong> :  amd64 ia64 sparc64
support.</p>

<h3>Discussion</h3>

<div class="discussion">

<p><strong class="speaker">marcel</strong> : New uart(4) driver
supports serial console on the HP boxes in the cluster.  HP boxes with
no ISA bus emulation now supported from CVS.  Should now be able to
release for all ia64 boxes from CVS.</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">imp</strong> : uart(4) driver encapsulates
lots of different UART chips.  puc(4) driver is for aggregating many
things at one attachment point.</p>

<p>Could we replace sio(4) with uart(4)?  sio(4) is more about
squeezing out performance, uart(4) is more about flexibility.  Low-end
performance would suck, but that's probably not the target platform
for 6.0.</p>

<p>phk wants minimum hardware specs for releases.  grog says that the
people in this room are not typical users.  Much debate about this.
rwatson: Defer this for 6.0 session.</p>

<p>5.X efforts need to concentrate on stability and performance.</p>

<p><strong class="speaker">imp</strong> : Need to tie up loose ends in
supported hardware, etc.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

  &footer;
  </body>
</html>
