Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-08-20 Thread Nik Clayton
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that tag until the kernel

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-08-20 Thread John Baldwin
Nik Clayton wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-08-20 Thread Jason Evans
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 12:14:05PM +, Nik Clayton wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial checkin, and

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-23 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:56:56PM -0700, Greg Lehey wrote: On Thursday, 22 June 2000 at 10:07:38 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: Ok, I have put up a web page that will track my efforts.

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-23 Thread Adam
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Mark Murray wrote: Has anyone given any thought to what it would take to create an open source version of something similar to perforce? ;-) Clearly you have. :-). We await your submissions with baited breath... I have

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-23 Thread Marc van Woerkom
Using a non opensource commercial version control system is just to ask for bad carma, extended murphy fields and whatnot in an opensource volounteer project... I would like to understand the discussed weakness of cvs regarding branches. Could someone explain it (in private) or point me to a

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-23 Thread Dave Glowacki
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: Everyone talks about using bitkeeper but none of the people who recommend it have ever actually tried to use it for anything. Before such recommendations will bear weight, this needs to change. :) OCVS? (Or was it OVCS? I can

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-23 Thread Matthew Jacob
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Greg Lehey wrote: On Thursday, 22 June 2000 at 10:07:38 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: Ok, I have put up a web page that will track my efforts. http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeBSDSmp/ Your

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-22 Thread Bernd Walter
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: Ok, I have put up a web page that will track my efforts. http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeBSDSmp/ Your first patchset contains only i386 code. What is the timeframe for alpha relative to i386? Will each i386 code step

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-22 Thread Greg Lehey
On Thursday, 22 June 2000 at 10:07:38 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: Ok, I have put up a web page that will track my efforts. http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeBSDSmp/ Your first patchset contains only i386 code. What is

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-22 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: Everyone talks about using bitkeeper but none of the people who recommend it have ever actually tried to use it for anything. Before such recommendations will bear weight, this needs to change. :) OCVS? (Or was it OVCS? I can never recall...) -- Daniel C.

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-21 Thread Jason Evans
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:41:57AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? I'm at USENIX right now, so I'm a bit strapped for time to work on this. Still, I plan to email a brief summary of the meeting

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Nick Hibma
More over, unlike other big project like CAM, this baby is going to touch the gut of the OS. It might be possible however for individual projects to move into a separate branch. Nick What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that the branch will *replace* HEAD when it

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Nick Hibma
CAM is not a valid example. It only touched the disk subsystem. Merging back changes in blocks might not be possible. As Matthew mentioned, Chuck's experience should be taken for a fact. And bounding the amount of breakage is almost impossible without squeezing the people doing the SMP work

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Robert Withrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: :- "CVS branches suck" is the reason I belive. Bitkeeper? -- Robert Withrow -- (+1 978 288 8256) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-21 Thread Greg Lehey
On Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 9:41:57 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? I'm writing up a detailed trip report for my company. I can't see why I shouldn't forward it to the SMP list as well, but I

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Greg Lehey
On Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 12:57:41 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes: I think core has approved in principle, and several core members were present at the meeting (at least peter, dg, gibbs, dfr), that being said, I think we need to see some

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-21 Thread Greg Lehey
On Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 11:16:24 +0200, Martin Cracauer wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? Who was there, anyway? From my trip report. This can hardly be confidential.

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Jordan K. Hubbard
Everyone talks about using bitkeeper but none of the people who recommend it have ever actually tried to use it for anything. Before such recommendations will bear weight, this needs to change. :) - Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: :- "CVS branches suck" is the reason I belive.

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Warner Losh
In message 12213.961613148@localhost "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: : Everyone talks about using bitkeeper but none of the people who : recommend it have ever actually tried to use it for anything. : Before such recommendations will bear weight, this needs to : change. :) In that case, I'd

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Soren Schmidt
It seems Warner Losh wrote: In message 12213.961613148@localhost "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: : Everyone talks about using bitkeeper but none of the people who : recommend it have ever actually tried to use it for anything. : Before such recommendations will bear weight, this needs to :

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Brad Knowles
At 9:34 PM +0200 2000/6/21, Soren Schmidt wrote: Using a non opensource commercial version control system is just to ask for bad carma, extended murphy fields and whatnot in an opensource volounteer project... Has anyone given any thought to what it would take to create an open

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Dan Papasian
Eivind Elkund was talking about doing something like this. He had a pretty nice document about it, too. If I recall, the name was "OVCS: Open Version Control System" Perhaps someone could fill in the blanks? I couldn't find the document at the address I thought it was kept,

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Mark Murray
Has anyone given any thought to what it would take to create an open source version of something similar to perforce? ;-) Clearly you have. :-). We await your submissions with baited breath... M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Brad Knowles
At 11:09 PM +0200 2000/6/21, Mark Murray wrote: Has anyone given any thought to what it would take to create an open source version of something similar to perforce? ;-) Clearly you have. :-). We await your submissions with baited breath... If you're waiting for me on this,

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Brad Knowles
At 5:00 PM -0400 2000/6/21, Dan Papasian wrote: Eivind Elkund was talking about doing something like this. He had a pretty nice document about it, too. If I recall, the name was "OVCS: Open Version Control System" Hmm. So far, Google hasn't been particularly useful in trying to

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-21 Thread Chuck Robey
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Mark Murray wrote: Has anyone given any thought to what it would take to create an open source version of something similar to perforce? ;-) Clearly you have. :-). We await your submissions with baited breath... I have mixed feelings about that. The Perforce

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? Can we get to see the slides ? Audio ? Video ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? Who was there, anyway? Martin -- % Martin Cracauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Julian Elischer
Martin Cracauer wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? Who was there, anyway? Yeah, those of us who couldn't make it are kinda (to say the least) interested in what was

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason Evans writes: : Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order : of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial : checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that tag until : the kernel

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what : the outcome of the meeting was ? : : Can we get to see the slides ? : : Audio ? : : Video ? I know that I'd love to see this. Steve Passe also is interested. Warner

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason Evans writes: : Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order : of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial : checkin, and non-developers should either

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : I think core has approved in principle, and several core members : were present at the meeting (at least peter, dg, gibbs, dfr), that : being said, I think we need to see some more concrete info before : we pull the lever, just so we know

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : I think core has approved in principle, and several core members : were present at the meeting (at least peter, dg, gibbs, dfr), that : being said, I think we need to see some more concrete

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Matthew Dillon
:: the kernel stabilizes, or expect large doses of pain. This tag will be :: laid down as soon as June 26, 00:00 PST, with a minimum 24 hour warning :: beforehand. : :Thanks for the fair warning. Now don't do it. Has core approved :this? I don't think so, I've seen nothign from them about

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Jacques A . Vidrine
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 08:49:27PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: So: No I don't like -current being toast anymore than you do, but I don't think there is a viable alternative. Not even a seperate repository, as was done (briefly) for newbus? Of course, maybe that was done so briefly

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Dillon writes: : The problem is that the changes are simply too extensive to be able : be able to split them off then merge them back into 5.x N months later. : Creating another branch will tripple the workload on anyone doing : merge work.

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Brian Somers
What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ? This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose. Anybody that's not confident to be able to merge

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? I believe that Jason Evans already sent a message summarizing the meeting, and Matt Dillon's webpage gives a pretty good summary of

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Somers writes: What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ? "CVS branches suck" is the reason I belive. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Lemon writes: In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? I believe that Jason Evans already sent a message summarizing the meeting, and

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Thomas David Rivers
What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ? This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose. Anybody that's not confident to be able

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Nick Hibma
Although I would not like to put it as strongly as Warner does, I would like to ask how the decision makers expect the rest of the project to progress (the other 30 or so kernel committers) in a reasonable, not too time consuming way. Will there be a general mechanism for making patchsets

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Brian Somers
What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ? This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose. Anybody that's not confident to

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-20 Thread Mike Meyer
Warner Losh writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason Evans writes: : Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order : of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial : checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that tag

HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-19 Thread Jason Evans
Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that tag until the kernel stabilizes, or expect large doses of pain. This tag will be laid

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-19 Thread Brad Knowles
At 11:53 AM -0700 2000/6/19, Jason Evans wrote: Last week, approximately 20 BSD developers got together and discussed how to move FreeBSD's SMP support to the next level. Our effort will be largely based on the work that has been done in BSD/OS, which should make things go much more

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-19 Thread Michael Lucas
On a totally non-technical, but somewhat related note, can anyone give me any kind of idea how often relatively "large scale" changes like this typically occur with FreeBSD? IIRC, this is the biggest operation of its sort since 2.1. Can't comment on anything before then, I wasn't

Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development

2000-06-19 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Summary: -current will be destabilized for an extended period (on the order :of months). A tag (not a branch) will be laid down before the initial :checkin, and non-developers should either stick closely to that tag until :the kernel stabilizes, or expect large doses of pain. This tag will be

SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-19 Thread Jason Evans
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: Ok, I have put up a web page that will track my efforts. http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeBSDSmp/ On this page, you say: The algorithms described on this page are essentially the BSDI algorithms plus accomodations

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-19 Thread Matthew Dillon
:On this page, you say: : : The algorithms described on this page are essentially the BSDI algorithms : plus accomodations we disussed at the Yahoo SMP meeting. However, I did : not do a direct port. I did a from-scratch rewrite because, simply put, : it was easier for me. The variables are