Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:51 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Siddharth Prakash Singh <spsneo@gmail.com> Cc: Jordan Gordeev <jgordeev@dir.bg>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Google SoC 2009 Idea Message-ID: <20090225113751.62205vkw7ui1ax6o@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <e8e9f3930902241743n3f650698r389137caa048daf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <e8e9f3930902240943o2e2f4b1bh34916b775692a26f@mail.gmail.com> <1aa142960902241100u671d5f90u769ad98e08fabb43@mail.gmail.com> <e8e9f3930902241107j2e53c9fai9942ab14167831f@mail.gmail.com> <49A447C5.2020903@freebsd.org> <49A457CA.20704@dir.bg> <e8e9f3930902241743n3f650698r389137caa048daf2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Siddharth Prakash Singh <spsneo@gmail.com> (from Wed, 25 Feb =20 2009 07:13:05 +0530): > Yeah I sent the same proposal to all the *BSD mailing list, because I > am interested in doing this project . What's wrong in proposing the > same project in all the *BSD organizations? As one of the FreeBSD mentors for some GSoC's in the past: nothing is =20 wrong with proposing the same project to several *BSD projects, that's =20 not unusual and happened in the past several times. What's not so nice is to propose something without looking at the =20 existing features in this area. It's not just saying "I want to do =20 something like this". When you submit your proposal to Google, we =20 expect that you looked at the corresponding code and at least know =20 most of the features. You are not supposed to know each line of code =20 or to understand each line of code, but you should know what is there, =20 and what you need to do until your goal is achieved. For example in one of the past GSoC's proposals told that in the XYZ =20 subsystem A, B and C "is missing". They contained a timeframe which =20 explained how much time the student expects until each feature is =20 implemented. For some stuff (API compatibility) even a list of missing =20 functions was presented. You have to understand that in the past we got between 10 and 20 =20 students during the GSoC. For those 10-20 slots there where more than =20 100 proposals (more in the range of 200-300). Those proposals where =20 filtered by Google, so we've seen only those, which where not =20 immediately rejected by Google because of lack of content. Those =20 proposals have to be rated by the FreeBSD committers which are willing =20 to mentor students, and they do this based upon several checkpoints. =20 We look at the proposal and look if it is actually possible to do what =20 is proposed. Not only in general, also during the timeframe of the =20 GSoC and by a student. It is also not important that all features are =20 completed, so if we think that the student is able to e.g. handle 80% =20 of what he proposes and if we also think that this is ok for us, then =20 we give some points to the proposal. This means that the student has =20 to show that he understands what he is talking about and that he has =20 also some insight into what he has to do and some expectation how long =20 it takes. In the end the proposals with the most points (and someone willing to =20 mentor this project) are taken. So the better the proposal is, more =20 likely it will be that the proposal is accepted. When you look at the FreeBSD ideas page, you see the bare minimum what =20 information needs to be in the proposal (nobody needs to write the =20 required skills in a proposal). When we see a proposal which is just a =20 copy of what we have on the ideas page, it will not get that much =20 points, as it doesn't show if the students really understands what he =20 is proposing. Bye, Alexander. > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Jordan Gordeev <jgordeev@dir.bg> wrote: >> Sam Leffler wrote: >>> >>> Siddharth Prakash Singh wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Ray Mihm <ray.mihm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Title: Multicore Aware Process Scheduler. >>>>>> I have not gone through the process scheduler code of Free BSD. >>>>>> Hence, I am not yet aware about the current support for Multicore >>>>>> Architectures. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Talk to jeff@freebsd.org, the author of ULE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are your opinions on this project? What is the scope of this >>>> project? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux Kernel 2.6.* currently supports SMP, SMT, NUMA architectures. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Does the current scheduler has support for "CPU affinity/binding", >>>> mechanism for distinguishing varying capability of CPUs. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> These may be there already in ULE, although I'm not sure about NUMA. >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Waiting for your response, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I note you sent this same note to the netbsd mailing lists. =C2=A0You mi= ght >>> want to do some more investigation before you propose a project. >>> >>> =C2=A0 Sam >>> >> It was also sent to the DragonFly mailing lists. :-) >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >> > > > > -- > Siddharth Prakash Singh > http://www.spsneo.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > --=20 There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. =09=09-- Anatole France http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090225113751.62205vkw7ui1ax6o>