dukeleto.pl

Really TLDR: The Parrot has landed.

It brings me great joy to announce that I have completed all milestones for my TPF grant regarding the Parrot Embed/Extend subsystems! Not only that, but all of my grant work was included in the most recent release of Parrot, 3.5.0 "Menelaus".

The actual TLDR of this update is "many tests were written, code coverage is above 95% for all systems described in the grant, docs were improved, many Parrot Trac tickets were created and many a blarg toast was cooked.

For those of you that have a thirst for knowledge unquenched (I know who you are), you are welcome to pondiferously peruse the Impending Technical Details.

The Deets

The last portion of this grant definitiely challenged me to think in new ways about testing and I am now only beginning to reap the benefits. I was charged with adding code coverage a few rarely-if-ever-used C functions in Parrot's embed/exted subsystem, which allows you embed Parrot into other applications and other funky stuff.

Whiteknight++ greatly helped me write a test for Parrot_sub_new_from_c_func which takes a C function and a string that describes the function signature of the C function and returns a NCI PMC, which can be invoked.

I also learned many lessons about code coverage during the final stage of this grant, even though I thought I was at such a level of expertness that it would be hard to learn drastically new and important perspectives on testing. This pattern of thinking is always wrong.

Lesson 1

Sometimes you are the underdog and you have to interpret the rules in a new way in order to have a chance at winning. You need to be Ender Wiggins from Ender's Game: continually inventing new tactics to keep a winning edge over the competition.

I noticed that a large portion (about 80%) of the uncovered code in one file was a macro that was copy-and-pasted into two places. I refactored this into a single macro called POP_CONTEXT, which reduced the total number of lines in the file by roughly 10, while simultaneously decreased the number of uncoverd lines in the file by ~20 lines, which had a combined effect of pushing the code coverage over the necessary 95% mark.

This change definitely increases the maintainability and modularity of the code, but it feels a bit like gaming the system. Nonetheless, it saved the day.

Lesson 2

The simplest useful test that you are avoiding is the most valuable next test to write, because it has the best ROI (Return on Investment, where investment is the time it takes to write the test, and the return is having an automated way of verifying that the feature works.

Lesson 3

Software developers are very optimistic about time estimates. We forget about all the possible things that could go wrong and often quote estimates on something approaching "base case scenario". As a rule of thumb, I think all software developers should think long and hard about a time estimate for a given project, write down the estimate, then multiply that time estimate by pi for a REAL estimate.

I theorize that pi is the factor of time it takes to debug and write tests for behavior of hard-to-recreate edge cases.

I originally thought my grant would take about 3 months, but it ended up taking about 9 or ten. QED.

Finally, I would like to thank my grant manager Makoto Nozaki for providing lots of feedback, support and encouragement, as well as everyone else at the The Perl Foundation for funding this grant.

I am excited to announce that I have completed my next grant milestone! I recently increased test coverage of extend_vtable.c to over 95% ( 95.5% to be exact), achieving the milestone with a half percent buffer. It definitely wasn't easy, but I changed the way I was approaching writing tests and it resulted in a huge burst of productivity.

I went through a test coverage report and wrote down, on an actual piece of paper, every function that had no test coverage. This allowed me to circle the functions that I thought would be easiest to write tests for, and quickly got those out of the way. I then went for uncovered functions that were similar to already covered functions, and then finally I got to the hard functions.

This was a fruitful exercise, because it was decided by Parrot developers that some VTABLE functions escaped accidentally and that they should be removed from the public API. Whiteknight++ removed Parrot_PMC_destroy (extra points for humor), which I was using incorrectly in the extend_vtable tests and which was actually coredumping Parrot, but only on certain platforms. I then removed Parrot_PMC_mark and Parrot_PMC_invoke, the first being an implementation detail of the garbage collector, and Parrot_PMC_invoke because it was the only function that returned a '''Parrot_Opcode_t*''' and basically not fit for public consumption.

I also created a ticket (TT#2126) for a bug in the Parrot_PMC_morph function, which has some possibly buggy but definitely unspecified behavior.

The remaining, untested functions in extend_vtable are clone_pmc, cmp_pmc, get_pointer_keyed_int, get_pointer_keyed_str, remove_vtable_override, set_pointer_keyed and set_pointer_keyed_str. I leave the testing of these functions as an exercise to the interested reader :)

Grant Refactoring

This reminds me of a saying, I can't remember it exactly, but it is something about the best laid plans of camels and butterflies often taste like onions. Anyway, since I wrote my grant, the Parrot Embed API was deprecated and replaced with a shinier and better documented system. After talking with cotto++ and whiteknight++ on IRC, it was decided that working on test coverage for the new embed API was a better use of resources than writing tests for the old embed API that my original grant referred to, which will most likely be removed from Parrot soon.

The new embed API is called src/embed/api.c and the plan is to replace my grant milestone of 95% coverage of embed.c with 95% coverage of embed/api.c, which is currently at 72% coverage.

To summarize, I have two grant milestones left, increasing extend.c (currently at 61% ) and embed/api.c to 95% coverage.

Given the lessons learned from testing extend_vtable and based on the fact that I have already made some headway, my new estimate for these milestones is three weeks each. To make this more definite, I plan to be done with this grant work by July 15th.

This is the home stretch! I can feel it in my bones.

I met with fellow Parrot hackers allison++, cotto++ and chromatic++ recently in Portland, OR (it was jokingly called YAPC::OR on IRC) to talk about what we call M0. M0 stands for "magic level 0" and it is a refactoring of Parrot internals in a fundamental way.

cotto++ and I have been hacking on a detailed spec (over 35 pages now!) and a "final prototype" in Perl 5 in the last few weeks. M0 is as "magic level 0", which means it consists of the most basic building blocks of a virtual machine, which the rest of the VM can be built with. The term "magic" means high-level constructs and conveniences, such as objects, lexical variables, classes and their associated syntax sugar. M0 is not meant to be written by humans, except during bootstrapping. In the future, M0 will be probably be generated from Parrot Intermediate Representation (PIR), Not Quite Perl 6 (NQP) or other High Level Languages (HLLs).

The most important reason for M0 is to correct the fact that too much of Parrot internals are written in C. Parrot internals is constantly switching between code written in PIR, other HLL's such as NQP and C. Many types of optimizations go right out the window when you cross a language boundary. It is best for a virtual machine to minimize crossing language boundaries if an efficient JIT compiler is wanted, which we definitely desire. Since many hotpaths in Parrot internals cross between PIR and C, they can't be inlined or optimized as much as we would like.

A few years back, Parrot had a JIT compiler, from which many lessons were learned. I am sure some people were frustrated when we removed it in 1.7.0 but sometimes, it is best to start from a clean slate with many more lessons learned under your belt. Our old JIT did support multiple architectures but required maintaining a "JIT version" of every opcode on each architecture supported. Clearly, this method was not going to scale or be maintainable.

I will venture to say that M0 is the culmination of the lessons learned from our failed JIT. I should note that "failure" does not have a negative connotation in my mind. Indeed, only through failure are we truly learning. If you do something absolutely perfectly, you aren't learning.

We are at an exciting time in Parrot's history, in that for a long time, we wanted an elegant JIT, using all the latest spiffy techniques, but it was always an abstract idea, "just over there", but not enough to grab a-hold of. A new JIT that meets these goals absolutely requires something like M0, and is the driving force for its design. M0 will pave the way for an efficient JIT to be implemented on Parrot.

M0 currently consists of under 40 opcodes from which (we wager) all the rest of Parrot can be built upon. This is radically different from how Parrot currently works, where all of the deepest internals of Parrot are written in heavily macroized ANSI 89 C.

M0 has a source code, i.e. textual form and a bytecode form. chromatic++ brought up a good point at the beginning of the meeting about the bytecode file containing a cryptographic hash of the bytecode. This will allow one to distribute bytecode which can then be cryptographically verified by whoever eventually runs the bytecode. This is a very "fun" application of cryptography that I will be looking into further.

allison++ brought up some good questions about how merging bytecode files would be done. We hadn't really thought about that, so it lead to some fruitful conversation about how Parrot Bytecode (PBC) is currently merged, what it does wrong, and how M0 can do it less wronger.

We then talked about what exactly a "Continuation" in M0 means, and tried to clear up some definitions between what is actually meant by Context, State and Continuation.

chromatic++ also mentioned that an optional optimization for the garbage collector (GC) would be for it to create a memory pool solely to store Continuations, since they will be heavily used and many of them will be short-lived and reference each other, so having them in a small confined memory region will reduce cache misses. We are filing this under "good to know and we will do that when we get there."

Next we turned to concurrency, including how we would emulate the various concurrency models of the languages we want to support, such as Python's Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). We decided that M0 will totally ignorant of concurrency concepts, since it is a "magical" concept that will be implemented at a higher level. We have started to refer to the level above M0 as M1 and everything above M0 as M1+.

allison++ also mentioned that many innovations and optimizations are possible in storing isolated register sets for each Continuation (a.k.a call frame). This area of Parrot may yield some interesting surprises and perhaps some publishable findings.

We all agreed that M0 should be as ignorant about the GC as possible, but the GC will most likely learn about M0 as optimizations are implemented. The pluggability of our GC's were also talked about. allison++ raised the question "Are pluggable GC's easier to maintain/implement if they are only pluggable at compile-time?" Indeed, they probably are, but then we run into the issue that our current "make fulltest" runs our test suite under different GC's, which would require multiple compiles for a single test suite run. chromatic++ made a suggestion that we could instead make GC's pluggable at link-time (which would require a decent amount of reorganization) which would still allow developers to easily test different GC's without recompiling all of Parrot. chromatic++'s estimate is that removing runtime pluggability of GC's would result in an across the board speed improvement of 5%.

This conversation then turned toward the fact that M0 bytecode might depend on what GC was used when it was generated, i.e. the same M0 source code run under two different GC's would generate two different bytecode representations. This would happen if the M0 alloc() opcode assumes C calling conventions. This was generally deemed distasteful, so our alloc() opcode will not "bake in C assumptions", which is a good general principle, as well. This will be a fun test to write.

allison++ brought up the fact that we may need a way to tell the GC "this is allocated but uninitialized memory", a.k.a solve the "infant mortality" problem. chromatic++ suggested that we could add some kind of lifespan flag to our alloc opcode (which currently has an arbitrary/unused argument, since all M0 opcodes take 3 arguments for symmetry and performance reasons). This could be as simple as hints that a variable is local or global, or a more detailed delineation using bit flags.

It was also decided that we didn't need an invoke opcode and that invoke properly belongs as a VTABLE method on invokables.

We also talked about the fact that register machines greatly benefit from concentrating VM operations on either the caller or the callee side. Looking for more references about this. It seems that the callee side seems to be what we will try for, but I am not quite sure why.

We finally talked about calling conventions and decided that goto_chunk should roughly be equivalent to a jmp (assembly unconditional jump to address) and the invoke VTABLE would setup a return continuation (i.e. make a copy of the program counter), do a goto_chunk, and let the callee handle the rest, such as looking up a return continuation and invoking it.

After the main M0 meeting, cotto++, allison++ and I sat down at a coffee shop and came up with a list of next actions for M0:

• Write a recursive version of 'calculate the n-th Fibonacci number' in M0
• Write a simple checksum algorithm in M0 (suggestions?)
• Create a working PMC in M0
• M0 disassembler
• Create a "glossary brochure for Github cruisers"
• Implement function calls and returns
• Make sure each M0 opcode is tested via Devel::Cover
• Convert the M0 assembler to C
• Convert the M0 interpreter to C
• Link M0 into libparrot (no-op integration)

I have been talking to cotto++ on IRC while typing up these notes and we have come to the conclusion that a "bytecode verifier" should also be put on that list. A verifier is a utility that detects invalid bytecode and prevent attacks via malicious bytecode. This is something that happens at runtime, where as a bytecode checksum happens before runtime, or at the end of compile time. They provide different kinds of insurance. The bytecode checksum feature will be an instrinsic feature that is not optional, since it prevents Parrot from running known-bad bytecode. But a bytecode verifier adds a significant amount of overhead. This overhead is reasonable if you are running untrusted code, but it is unreasonable when your are running trusted bytecode (i.e. bytecode that you created), so the verifier will have an option to be turned off.

We obviously have a lot of fun stuff to work on, so if any of it sounds fun, come ask cotto++ or me (dukeleto) on #parrot on irc://irc.parrot.org for some M0 stuff to do. We especially need help with writing tests and documentation.

There will be a Parrot hackathon at YAPC::NA this year, where I am sure some M0-related hacking will be happening. If you have never been to a hackathon before, I highly recommend them as a way to join a project and/or community. Meatspace is still the best medium for some things :)

(UPDATE: Some factual errors about our old JIT were pointed out by rafl++ and corrected)

I am still on the path of increasing test coverage in src/extend_vtable.c. It is much like a zen study, where you methodically concentrate on many tiny little pebbles, one at a time, moving them in the sand, to just the right place. According to the latest code coverage statistics, we are now at 72% code coverage, which is an increase of about 8% since my last report.

Many, many more tests involving Key PMCs were added. For an intro to what they are, take a look at my previous grant update. Many of the tests are clusters of related tests, because most VTABLEs have many similar forms which take integer, string or PMC-flavored keys. I ran into some platform-specific bugs which only manifest on Darwin machines, which were reported by Jim Keenan in TT# 2098 and which I then fixed by querying with a non-empty Key, which is more prudent.

I also ran into some actual bugs which I reported as Trac Tickets. First is that the cmp_pmc VTABLE does not seem to be working correctly from extend_vtable, which was reported in TT #2103. Then I fell into a "hole" in the VTABLE API, where ResizablePMCArray does not respond to defined_keyed(), which it should. This is described in TT #2094.

In retrospect, this was one of the most productive periods of my grant work. I estimate that I will be very close to the 95% milestone by my next grant update at this pace, which is very exciting.

This wayward son is still on his treacherous journey to increase test coverage in src/extend_vtable.c. When we last left off our traveler, he explained what the mythical VTABLE beast looked like, and we shall continue with the study of this chimerical fauna.

According to the latest code coverage statistics, we are now at 64% code coverage, which is an increase of about 10% since my last report. Most of this grant work concentrated on vtables that required Key PMCs. A Key PMC is an object that can be used to look something up in a Hash PMC or other aggregated object that supports "keyed access". It is very much similar to a "hash key" that can be used to look up the appropriate value.

One of the lessons that I have learned in working on these tests is that it is very easy to write tests that pass on gcc, but which absolutely explode with g++. This has to do with gcc not being as strict when some questionable type casting is done. I have learned my lesson and I promise not to break the test suite anymore. I will use g++ in my testing from now on, promise!

My productivity was definitely hampered by moving to a new house and having a two week business trip in the last month, but my new home office is finally set up, so I expect productivity to approach previous levels of adding a few dozen tests per week.

The quest to improve test coverage for src/extend_vtable.c has continued. Some dragons were slayed, a few trolls were paid tolls to cross creaky bridges of abstraction and many siren calls to hack on other code were dutifully ignored (mostly).

This TPF grant has forced me to become very familiar with Parrot vtables (virtual tables), which is basically an API for talking to Parrot PMCs (really just objects with a funny name). PMC can stand for Parrot Magic Cookie or PolyMorphic Container. Take your pick.

Firstly, vtable is already slang for "vtable function", which expands to "virtual table function." What the junk is a "virtual table function" ? I find that the simplest way to think about it is that every PMC has slots or buckets with standardized names such as get_bool (get Boolean value) or elements (how many elements does this PMC have?)

All PMCs inherit sensible defaults for most vtables, but they are allowed to override them. Why would you want to override them? As a simple example, let us assume there is a vtable called length (there isn't actually, but it makes an easy example to explain these concepts). Our length vtable will act just like elements and tell us how many elements a PMC has. If we had a complex number PMC that was really just an FixedFloatArray PMC of two numbers underneath, the length would always return 2 for every complex number. Not very useful.

A much more useful length vtable would use the coefficients a and b from a + b*i and compute the Euclidean distance (length from the origin) sqrt(a^2 + b^2). Hopefully you now have a taste for what what vtables are about. Parrot PMCs have over 100 vtables that can be overridden to provide custom functionality.

I recently ran across the hashvalue vtable and couldn't find any tests for it in Parrot core (outside of the test that I had written for it in extend_vtable.t) or any use of it in Rakudo Perl 6. Oh noes! It seemed like an unused/untested feature, so I created a Trac Ticket to mark it as deprecated so it could be removed in a future release.

The discussion about the ticket was fierce. NotFound++ explained why the vtable was important and the mighty coding robot known as bacek++ manifested tests quickly.

Yet another case of this grant work having a positive impact on the Parrot codebase, even outside the embed/extend interface. I also improved an error message in the PMCProxy PMC, which arises when something goes bad during a partial re-compile. Yay for improved debuggability!

According to the current code coverage statistics, extend_vtable.c is up to 54% coverage from 43%, which is not quite where I predicted from my last update. No doubt this has something to do with me packing and preparing to move to a new house this month. My velocity didn't decrease so much as the amount of time that I had to work on this grant.

I am greatly enjoying working on this grant and even if it is going a bit slower than I had planned, I am very confident that it will be completed in the next few months and hopefully sooner.

I have slowly but surely been increasing test coverage of src/extend_vtable.c, which when I started my grant was at 5% and is now sitting at 43%. I estimated that it would take about two weeks to get it to 50% and then another two weeks to get to 95%, but this was a bit optimistic. When I look back, giving myself a month for each would have been appropriate.

I do believe that my development velocity has increased recently, because I wrote a convenience funciton called extend_vtable_output_is(), which greatly reduces the number of lines of code that each extend_vtable test requires. The function is basically a wrapper around already existing functions that automates the process of compiling C source code use the Parrot C API, but it removes the need for roughly 40 lines of boilerplate stuff, such as including the proper header files, defining convenience functions that do basic error checking and data structure creation.

The whole reason this subsystem is undertested is because no function like extend_vtable_output_is() existed. Now each of my extend_vtable tests is around 10 lines, instead of 50. I've only had the new function for about half the time of the grant, so tests are now getting written much faster.

I have added about 700 lines of lines of tests since this grant started (using the spiffy new extend_vtable_output_is() function), and that has caused a 38% increase in test coverage. With the power of mathematics, we can figure out that (.38)*N = 700, which means N = 700/.38 = ~1842, where N is the number of lines of tests needed to cover 100% of the file (roughly).

My new estimate for getting to 95% coverage of extend_vtable is one month from now, Feb 24th, and then another two months for the rest of the grant.

The reason I say two months is that I am actually trying to hit a moving target, and the code coverage of extend.c and embed.c have actually *gone down* since I started the grant. Currently extend.c is about 6% lower and embed.c is about 14% lower. This means my grant is actually getting harder to complete.

I also learned about a very useful yet undocument environment variable called POSTMORTEM which makes Parrot test functions leave various intermediate files around for debugging purposes if it is set to true, which greatly helps in developing these tests. I plan to add documentation about this to the Parrot developer documentation.

Given the new test function and the new coverage numbers, I estimate that I will be able to complete this grant by late April 2011.

My work on a TPF grant to improve documentation and test coverage of the Parrot Embedd API is going well. I have added extensive examples of Parrot function and type signatures, as well beginning to increase test coverage of this subsystem.

I am working in the leto/embed_grant branch on Github, which has already been merged to master just before the release of Parrot 2.11.0.

My first merge of this topic branch included about 15 commits, which are about 2/3rds documentation and 1/3rd tests. I clarified some points about edge cases of Parrot function signatures, such as void input and void output, which is the emtpy string concatenated to both sides of an arrow ->, and gave an expanded description of what Pi means (PMC, invocant). Many examples of diverse kinds of function signatures were also added.

I gave the first user-visible documentation for many constants in the Embed subsystem, such as debug flags when creating interpreter objects and inline descriptions of different runcores that can be used with interpreter objects.

The tests that I added include the first coverage of returning Float PMCs and numeric constants from our embedding subsytem, as well as additional coverage for returning a ResizablePMCArray consisting of Numeric PMCs. I also added tests for creating multiple interpreter objects and added a TODO test for Trac Ticket 1880.

I also fixed a bug in the Parrot test suite, where tests in t/src were not skipped properly if src/parrot_config.o did not exist.

Most of this work was done between Thanksgiving and holiday travel, so I expect that development pace will pick up in the next few days. Currently, one of four inchstones has been achieved, and I will concentrate on raising the code coverage of extend_vtable.c in the next two weeks.

I would like to thank The Perl Foundation, and Karen Pauley in particular, for funding this very important grant to the Parrot and Rakudo Perl 6 communities.

I'm excited to announce that Parrot Foundation and The Perl Foundation have been accepted as organizations in Google Code-In 2010!

Google Code-In is a contest, similar to Google Summer of Code, where Google pays students aged 13-18 to do tasks designed by open source communities, while learning about open source. Google pays for the work to be done, and we get new members to our communities, while students learn useful skills. It is a big win for everyone.

In 2010, Google Summer of Code was a great success for Perl and Parrot. We got amazing new features in Parrot, Perl 5 and Perl 6 . In 2009, we had similarly spectacular results.

For the students, the benefits are huge. They get mentored by some of the best minds in open source and get "street cred" in the community. This contest also acts as a stepping stone for Google Summer of Code, so students that excel at Code-In will most likely be sought after for future Google Summer of Code involvement. It's also fantastic experience to put on a résumé. I see many Google Summer of Code students get snapped up by respected companies, or accepted to prestigious academic institutions.

The more well-documented tasks we have before that, the more students we will have the potential to attract. I can attest that these kind of contests attract some of the smartest students in the world, so the Perl and Parrot communities have much to gain by being involved.

I expect great results for Code-In as well, but we need your help. The Google Code-In contest opens up for students on:

• November 22, 2010 at 12:00 AM Pacific Time / 08:00 UTC.

How Can You Get Involved?

• Add a task to our task list There is a template that you can copy and paste, as well as many examples. Any task related to Perl 5, Perl 6 or Parrot is fair game.
• Improve the description of an existing task. The more specific a task and the more documentation and links you provide, the easier it is for a student to choose and complete a task.
• Volunteer to mentor a student on a task. You apply to be a mentor here. Please join the tpf-gsoc-students mailing list and introduce yourself. Provide a brief description of why you are interested when you sign up, so we know you aren't a bot :) Please also join the #gci channel on irc.perl.org.
• Tell potential students about Google Code-In and how we are involved. Here is a link to the timeline and FAQ that you can send them, as well as flyers to post.

So many amazing things happened at the Google Summer of Code Mentor summit 2010! I will try to jot a few of them down, before they leave for warmer climates. For those that just want to read all the session notes, you can find them here. Also, if you haven't yet read about how The Perl Foundation and Parrot Foundation fared this summer, you can read about it on the Google Open Source Blog.

It began by arriving a bit early to work with some awesome people on improving the GSoC Mentor Manual by adding a chapter for Organization Admins (there is actually documentation now!) and writing a GSoC Student Manual. This "book sprint" was facilitated by Adam Hyde of FLOSSManuals, and they were written with a completely open source software stack, as well as being released under a Creative Commons license. They are free for anyone to read online and are easily exportable to many formats. Read the Student Manual or the Mentor+Org Admin Manual online now! We even bound 60 copies of the books and handed them out to mentors attending the summit.

Parrot on RTEMS hacking with Chris Johns and Ralf from RTEMS. We used Centos 5 RPMS on Ubuntu 10.04 with rpm2cpio piped to cpio, which was a trick to get around the fact that RTEMS does not have debian packages. It worked remarkably well. I had a cross-compilation environment setup after a few minutes. I think they will be adding these intructions to their wiki. Now that I have the RTEMS toolchain on my netbook, I will be much more productive with regard to Parrot on RTEMS.

Chromatic, Chris Johns and I sat in a room and talked shop about how Parrot and RTEMS can play nicely together. There are still some feature voids on the Parrot side to fill: Parrot calls exit() in various places, which reboots RTEMS i.e. a syntax error reboots the OS. Not Fun. Parrot also needs a C probe to detect RTEMS, which already has a ticket in our bug tracker. A real-time garbage collector will be needed for long-running processes, but for short-lived applications, disabling the GC with the -G command line argument to Parrot will work.

I gave a session with Selena Deckelmann and Bart Massey introducing Troll University, which aims to educate organizations, corporations and open source communities about what motivations and principles trolls use and how to protect against them. We are working on some Trollcasts, so stay tuned!

I also gave a session called Dynamic Language Interoperability, which has been held for the last few years, to my knowledge. The consensus seemed to be that every dynamic language has the same interop problems, and Parrot VM seems to be the only project working hard to solve these complex issues in a general manner. This gives me a lot of hope that people will soon realize that Parrot is full of WIN.

It also came to my attention during the conference that Github hired the student that mentored under them this year to work on libgit2. This is one example of the amazing opportunities that students have after completing a Google Summer of Code. The sky really is the limit. And just in case you think this is an isolated incident, it isn't.

As if writing some books and going the Mentor Summit wasn't enough to totally drain me, I am currently attending the last day of the GIT Together 2010, which is the yearly Git developer and user meetup/unconferencey thing. I have learned so much that I can't even begin to describe it, but if you want to look at session notes, you can find them here.