The Postmaster is responsible for mail being correctly delivered to the committers' email address. They are also responsible for ensuring that the mailing lists work and should take measures against possible disruptions of mail such as having troll-, spam- and virus-filters.
Hat currently held by: the Postmaster Team postmaster@FreeBSD.org.
The responsibilities of the Release Engineering Team are
Setting, publishing and following a release schedule for official releases
Documenting and formalising release engineering procedures
Creation and maintenance of code branches
Coordinating with the Ports and Documentation teams to have an updated set of packages and documentation released with the new releases
Coordinating with the Security team so that pending releases are not affected by recently disclosed vulnerabilities.
Further information about the development process is available in the Release engineering section.
The Public Relations & Corporate Liaison’s responsibilities are:
Making press statements when happenings that are important to the FreeBSD Project happen.
Being the official contact person for corporations that are working close with the FreeBSD Project.
Take steps to promote FreeBSD within both the Open Source community and the corporate world.
Handle the "freebsd-advocacy" mailing list.
This hat is currently not occupied.
The Security Officer’s main responsibility is to coordinate information exchange with others in the security community and in the FreeBSD project. The Security Officer is also responsible for taking action when security problems are reported and promoting proactive development behavior when it comes to security.
Because of the fear that information about vulnerabilities may leak out to people with malicious intent before a patch is available, only the Security Officer, consisting of an officer, a deputy and two Core Team members, receive sensitive information about security issues. However, to create or implement a patch, the Security Officer has the Security Officer Team security-team@FreeBSD.org to help do the work.
The Source Repository Manager is the only one who is allowed to directly modify the repository without using the Subversion (SVN) tool. It is their responsibility to ensure that technical problems that arise in the repository are resolved quickly. The source repository manager has the authority to back out commits if this is necessary to resolve a SVN technical problem.
Hat held by: the Source Repository Manager clusteradm@FreeBSD.org.
The Election Manager is responsible for the Core election process. The manager is responsible for running and maintaining the election system, and is the final authority should minor unforeseen events happen in the election process. Major unforeseen events have to be discussed with the Core Team
Hat held only during elections.
The Web site Management hat is responsible for coordinating the rollout of updated web pages on mirrors around the world, for the overall structure of the primary web site and the system it is running upon. The management needs to coordinate the content with The FreeBSD Documentation Project and acts as maintainer for the "www" tree.
Hat held by: the FreeBSD Webmasters www@FreeBSD.org.
The Ports Manager acts as a liaison between The Ports Subproject and the core project, and all requests from the project should go to the ports manager.
The Standards hat is responsible for ensuring that FreeBSD complies with the standards it is committed to , keeping up to date on the development of these standards and notifying FreeBSD developers of important changes that allows them to take a proactive role and decrease the time between a standards update and FreeBSD’s compliancy.
Hat currently held by: Garrett Wollman wollman@FreeBSD.org.
The Core Secretary’s main responsibility is to write drafts to and publish the final Core Reports. The secretary also keeps the core agenda, thus ensuring that no balls are dropped unresolved.
Hat currently held by: Muhammad Moinur Rahman[bofh@FreeBSD.org].
The Bugmeister is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance database is in working order, that the entries are correctly categorised and that there are no invalid entries. They supervise bugbusters.
Hat currently held by: the Bugmeister Team bugmeister@FreeBSD.org.
The task of the donations liaison officer is to match the developers with needs with people or organisations willing to make a donation.
(Also called "FreeBSD Cluster Admin")
The admin team consists of the people responsible for administrating the computers that the project relies on for its distributed work and communication to be synchronised. It consists mainly of those people who have physical access to the servers.
Hat held by: the Admin team admin@FreeBSD.org.
The person originally responsible for filing a Problem Report.
A person who will either find the right person to solve the problem, or close the PR if it is a duplicate or otherwise not an interesting one.
A mentor is a committer who takes it upon them to introduce a new committer to the project, both in terms of ensuring the new committer’s setup is valid, that the new committer knows the available tools required in their work, and that the new committer knows what is expected of them in terms of behavior.
The person(s) or organisation whom external code comes from and whom patches are sent to.
People on the mailing list where the request for review is posted.
The following section will describe the defined project processes. Issues that are not handled by these processes happen on an ad-hoc basis based on what has been customary to do in similar cases.
The Core team has the responsibility of giving and removing commit privileges to contributors. This can only be done through a vote on the core mailing list. The ports and documentation sub-projects can give commit privileges to people working on these projects, but have to date not removed such privileges.
Normally a contributor is recommended to core by a committer. For contributors or outsiders to contact core asking to be a committer is not well thought of and is usually rejected.
If the area of particular interest for the developer potentially overlaps with other committers' area of maintainership, the opinion of those maintainers is sought. However, it is frequently this committer that recommends the developer.
When a contributor is given committer status, they are assigned a mentor. The committer who recommended the new committer will, in the general case, take it upon themselves to be the new committers mentor.
When a contributor is given their commit bit, a Pretty Good Privacy-signed email is sent from either Core Secretary, Ports Manager, or firstname.lastname@example.org to both email@example.com, the assigned mentor, the new committer, and core confirming the approval of a new account. The mentor then gathers a password line, Secure Shell public key, and PGP key from the new committer and sends them to Admin. When the new account is created, the mentor activates the commit bit and guides the new committer through the rest of the initial process.
When a contributor sends a piece of code, the receiving committer may choose to recommend that the contributor is given commit privileges. If they recommend this to core, core will vote on this recommendation. If the vote is in favour, a mentor is assigned the new committer and the new committer has to email their details to the administrators for an account to be created. After this, the new committer is all set to make their first commit. By tradition, this is by adding their name to the committers list.
Recall that a committer is considered to be someone who has committed code during the past 12 months. However, it is not until after 18 months of inactivity have passed that commit privileges are eligible to be revoked. [FreeBSD, 2002H] There are, however, no automatic procedures for doing this. For reactions concerning commit privileges not triggered by time, see section 1.5.8.
When Core decides to clean up the committers list, they check who has not made a commit for the past 18 months. Committers who have not done so have their commit bits revoked and their account removed by the administrators.
It is also possible for committers to request that their commit bit be retired if for some reason they are no longer going to be actively committing to the project. In this case, it can also be restored at a later time by core, should the committer ask.
Roles in this process:
The committing of new or modified code is one of the most frequent processes in the FreeBSD project and will usually happen many times a day. Committing of code can only be done by a "committer". Committers commit either code written by themselves, code submitted to them, or code submitted through a problem report.
When code is written by the developer that is non-trivial, they should seek a code review from the community. This is done by sending mail to the relevant list asking for review. Before submitting the code for review, they should ensure it compiles correctly with the entire tree and that all relevant tests run. This is called "pre-commit test". When contributed code is received, it should be reviewed by the committer and tested the same way.
When a change is committed to a part of the source that has been contributed from an outside Vendor, the maintainer should ensure that the patch is contributed back to the vendor. This is in line with the open source philosophy and makes it easier to stay in sync with outside projects as the patches do not have to be reapplied every time a new release is made.
After the code has been available for review and no further changes are necessary, the code is committed into the development branch, -CURRENT. If the change applies for the -STABLE branch or the other branches as well, a "Merge From Current" ("MFC") countdown is set by the committer. After the number of days the committer chose when setting the MFC have passed, an email will automatically be sent to the committer reminding them to commit it to the -STABLE branch (and possibly security branches as well). Only security critical changes should be merged to security branches.
Delaying the commit to -STABLE and other branches allows for "parallel debugging" where the committed code is tested on a wide range of configurations. This makes changes to -STABLE to contain fewer faults and thus giving the branch its name.
When a committer has written a piece of code and wants to commit it, they first need to determine if it is trivial enough to go in without prior review or if it should first be reviewed by the developer community. If the code is trivial or has been reviewed and the committer is not the maintainer, they should consult the maintainer before proceeding. If the code is contributed by an outside vendor, the maintainer should create a patch that is sent back to the vendor. The code is then committed and then deployed by the users. Should they find problems with the code, this will be reported and the committer can go back to writing a patch. If a vendor is affected, they can choose to implement or ignore the patch.
The difference when a contributor makes a code contribution is that they submit the code through the Bugzilla interface. This report is picked up by the maintainer who reviews the code and commits it.
Hats included in this process are:
Core elections are held at least every two years.  Nine core members are elected. New elections are held if the number of core members drops below seven. New elections can also be held should at least 1/3 of the active committers demand this.
When an election is to take place, core announces this at least 6 weeks in advance, and appoints an election manager to run the elections.
Only committers can be elected into core. The candidates need to submit their candidacy at least one week before the election starts, but can refine their statements until the voting starts. They are presented in the candidates list. When writing their election statements, the candidates must answer a few standard questions submitted by the election manager.
During elections, the rule that a committer must have committed during the 12 past months is followed strictly. Only these committers are eligible to vote.
When voting, the committer may vote once in support of up to nine nominees. The voting is done over a period of four weeks with reminders being posted on "developers" mailing list that is available to all committers.
The election results are released one week after the election ends, and the new core team takes office one week after the results have been posted.
Should there be a voting tie, this will be resolved by the new, unambiguously elected core members.
Votes and candidate statements are archived, but the archives are not publicly available.
Core announces the election and selects an election manager who prepares the elections, and when ready, candidates can announce their candidacies through submitting their statements. The committers then vote. After the vote is over, the election results are announced and the new core team takes office.
Hats in core elections are:
Within the project there are sub-projects that are working on new features. These projects are generally done by one person [Jørgensen, 2001]. Every project is free to organise development as it sees fit. However, when the project is merged to the -CURRENT branch it must follow the project guidelines. When the code has been well tested in the -CURRENT branch and deemed stable enough and relevant to the -STABLE branch, it is merged to the -STABLE branch.
The requirements of the project are given by developer wishes, requests from the community in terms of direct requests by mail, Problem Reports, commercial funding for the development of features, or contributions by the scientific community. The wishes that come within the responsibility of a developer are given to that developer who prioritises their time between the request and their wishes. A common way to do this is maintain a TODO-list maintained by the project. Items that do not come within someone’s responsibility are collected on TODO-lists unless someone volunteers to take the responsibility. All requests, their distribution and follow-up are handled by the Bugzilla tool.
Requirements analysis happens in two ways. The requests that come in are discussed on mailing lists, both within the main project and in the sub-project that the request belongs to or is spawned by the request. Furthermore, individual developers on the sub-project will evaluate the feasibility of the requests and determine the prioritisation between them. Other than archives of the discussions that have taken place, no outcome is created by this phase that is merged into the main project.
As the requests are prioritised by the individual developers on the basis of doing what they find interesting, necessary, or are funded to do, there is no overall strategy or prioritisation of what requests to regard as requirements and following up their correct implementation. However, most developers have some shared vision of what issues are more important, and they can ask for guidelines from the release engineering team.
The verification phase of the project is two-fold. Before committing code to the current-branch, developers request their code to be reviewed by their peers. This review is for the most part done by functional testing, but also code review is important. When the code is committed to the branch, a broader functional testing will happen, that may trigger further code review and debugging should the code not behave as expected. This second verification form may be regarded as structural verification. Although the sub-projects themselves may write formal tests such as unit tests, these are usually not collected by the main project and are usually removed before the code is committed to the current branch. 
It is an advantage to the project to for each area of the source have at least one person that knows this area well. Some parts of the code have designated maintainers. Others have de-facto maintainers, and some parts of the system do not have maintainers. The maintainer is usually a person from the sub-project that wrote and integrated the code, or someone who has ported it from the platform it was written for.  The maintainer’s job is to make sure the code is in sync with the project the code comes from if it is contributed code, and apply patches submitted by the community or write fixes to issues that are discovered.
The main bulk of work that is put into the FreeBSD project is maintenance. [Jørgensen, 2001] has made a figure showing the life cycle of changes.
Jørgenssen’s model for change integration
|Stage||Next if successful||Next if unsuccessful|
Here "development release" refers to the -CURRENT branch while "production release" refers to the -STABLE branch. The "pre-commit test" is the functional testing by peer developers when asked to do so or trying out the code to determine the status of the sub-project. "Parallel debugging" is the functional testing that can trigger more review, and debugging when the code is included in the -CURRENT branch.
As of this writing, there were 269 committers in the project. When they commit a change to a branch, that constitutes a new release. It is very common for users in the community to track a particular branch. The immediate existence of a new release makes the changes widely available right away and allows for rapid feedback from the community. This also gives the community the response time they expect on issues that are of importance to them. This makes the community more engaged, and thus allows for more and better feedback that again spurs more maintenance and ultimately should create a better product.
Before making changes to code in parts of the tree that has a history unknown to the committer, the committer is required to read the commit logs to see why certain features are implemented the way they are in order not to make mistakes that have previously either been thought through or resolved.
Before FreeBSD 10, FreeBSD included a problem reporting tool called
send-pr. Problems include bug reports, feature requests, feature enhancements and notices of new versions of external software that are included in the project. Although
send-pr is available, users and developers are encouraged to submit issues using our problem report form.
Problem reports are sent to an email address where it is inserted into the Problem Reports maintenance database. A Bugbuster classifies the problem and sends it to the correct group or maintainer within the project. After someone has taken responsibility for the report, the report is being analysed. This analysis includes verifying the problem and thinking out a solution for the problem. Often feedback is required from the report originator or even from the FreeBSD community. Once a patch for the problem is made, the originator may be asked to try it out. Finally, the working patch is integrated into the project, and documented if applicable. It there goes through the regular maintenance cycle as described in section Maintenance. These are the states a problem report can be in: open, analyzed, feedback, patched, suspended and closed. The suspended state is for when further progress is not possible due to the lack of information or for when the task would require so much work that nobody is working on it at the moment.
A problem is reported by the report originator. It is then classified by a bugbuster and handed to the correct maintainer. They verify the problem and discuss the problem with the originator until they have enough information to create a working patch. This patch is then committed and the problem report is closed.
The roles included in this process are:
[FreeBSD, 2001] has a number of rules that committers should follow. However, it happens that these rules are broken. The following rules exist in order to be able to react to misbehavior. They specify what actions will result in how long a suspension of the committer’s commit privileges.
Committing during code freezes without the approval of the Release Engineering team - 2 days
Committing to a security branch without approval - 2 days
Commit wars - 5 days to all participating parties
Impolite or inappropriate behavior - 5 days
For the suspensions to be efficient, any single core member can implement a suspension before discussing it on the "core" mailing list. Repeat offenders can, with a 2/3 vote by core, receive harsher penalties, including permanent removal of commit privileges. (However, the latter is always viewed as a last resort, due to its inherent tendency to create controversy.) All suspensions are posted to the "developers" mailing list, a list available to committers only.
It is important that you cannot be suspended for making technical errors. All penalties come from breaking social etiquette.
Hats involved in this process:
The FreeBSD project has a Release Engineering team with a principal release engineer that is responsible for creating releases of FreeBSD that can be brought out to the user community via the net or sold in retail outlets. Since FreeBSD is available on multiple platforms and releases for the different architectures are made available at the same time, the team has one person in charge of each architecture. Also, there are roles in the team responsible for coordinating quality assurance efforts, building a package set and for having an updated set of documents. When referring to the release engineer, a representative for the release engineering team is meant.
When a release is coming, the FreeBSD project changes shape somewhat. A release schedule is made containing feature- and code-freezes, release of interim releases and the final release. A feature-freeze means no new features are allowed to be committed to the branch without the release engineers' explicit consent. Code-freeze means no changes to the code (like bugs-fixes) are allowed to be committed without the release engineers' explicit consent. This feature- and code-freeze is known as stabilising. During the release process, the release engineer has the full authority to revert to older versions of code and thus "back out" changes should they find that the changes are not suitable to be included in the release.
There are three different kinds of releases:
.0 releases are the first release of a major version. These are branched of the -CURRENT branch and have a significantly longer release engineering cycle due to the unstable nature of the -CURRENT branch
.X releases are releases of the -STABLE branch. They are scheduled to come out every 4 months.
.X.Y releases are security releases that follow the .X branch. These come out only when sufficient security fixes have been merged since the last release on that branch. New features are rarely included, and the security team is far more involved in these than in regular releases.
For releases of the -STABLE-branch, the release process starts 45 days before the anticipated release date. During the first phase, the first 15 days, the developers merge what changes they have had in -CURRENT that they want to have in the release to the release branch. When this period is over, the code enters a 15 day code freeze in which only bug fixes, documentation updates, security-related fixes and minor device driver changes are allowed. These changes must be approved by the release engineer in advance. At the beginning of the last 15 day period a release candidate is created for widespread testing. Updates are less likely to be allowed during this period, except for important bug fixes and security updates. In this final period, all releases are considered release candidates. At the end of the release process, a release is created with the new version number, including binary distributions on web sites and the creation of CD-ROM images. However, the release is not considered "really released" until a Pretty Good Privacy-signed message stating exactly that, is sent to the mailing list freebsd-announce; anything labelled as a "release" before that may well be in-process and subject to change before the PGP-signed message is sent. .
The releases of the -CURRENT-branch (that is, all releases that end with ".0") are very similar, but with twice as long timeframe. It starts 8 weeks prior to the release with announcement of the release time line. Two weeks into the release process, the feature freeze is initiated and performance tweaks should be kept to a minimum. Four weeks prior to the release, an official beta version is made available. Two weeks prior to release, the code is officially branched into a new version. This version is given release candidate status, and as with the release engineering of -STABLE, the code freeze of the release candidate is hardened. However, development on the main development branch can continue. Other than these differences, the release engineering processes are alike.
*.0 releases go into their own branch and are aimed mainly at early adopters. The branch then goes through a period of stabilisation, and it is not until the Release Engineering Team decides the demands to stability have been satisfied that the branch becomes -STABLE and -CURRENT targets the next major version. While this for the majority has been with *.1 versions, this is not a demand.
Most releases are made when a given date that has been deemed a long enough time since the previous release comes. A target is set for having major releases every 18 months and minor releases every 4 months. The user community has made it very clear that security and stability cannot be sacrificed by self-imposed deadlines and target release dates. For slips of time not to become too long with regards to security and stability issues, extra discipline is required when committing changes to -STABLE.
Make release schedule
Stabilize release (loop back to previous step as many times as necessary; when release is considered stable, proceed with next step)
The major support tools for supporting the development process are Bugzilla, Mailman, and OpenSSH. These are externally developed tools and are commonly used in the open source world.
Subversion ("SVN") is a system to handle multiple versions of text files and tracking who committed what changes and why. A project lives within a "repository" and different versions are considered different "branches".
Bugzilla is a maintenance database consisting of a set of tools to track bugs at a central site. It supports the bug tracking process for sending and handling bugs as well as querying and updating the database and editing bug reports. The project uses its web interface to send "Problem Reports" to the project’s central Bugzilla server. The committers also have web and command-line clients.
Mailman is a program that automates the management of mailing lists. The FreeBSD Project uses it to run 16 general lists, 60 technical lists, 4 limited lists and 5 lists with SVN commit logs. It is also used for many mailing lists set up and used by other people and projects in the FreeBSD community. General lists are lists for the general public, technical lists are mainly for the development of specific areas of interest, and closed lists are for internal communication not intended for the general public. The majority of all the communication in the project goes through these 85 lists [FreeBSD, 2003A, Appendix C].
Pretty Good Privacy, better known as PGP, is a cryptosystem using a public key architecture to allow people to digitally sign and/or encrypt information in order to ensure secure communication between two parties. A signature is used when sending information out to many recipients, enabling them to verify that the information has not been tampered with before they received it. In the FreeBSD Project this is the primary means of ensuring that information has been written by the person who claims to have written it, and not altered in transit.
Secure Shell is a standard for securely logging into a remote system and for executing commands on the remote system. It allows other connections, called tunnels, to be established and protected between the two involved systems. This standard exists in two primary versions, and only version two is used for the FreeBSD Project. The most common implementation of the standard is OpenSSH that is a part of the project’s main distribution. Since its source is updated more often than FreeBSD releases, the latest version is also available in the ports tree.
Sub-projects are formed to reduce the amount of communication needed to coordinate the group of developers. When a problem area is sufficiently isolated, most communication would be within the group focusing on the problem, requiring less communication with the groups they communicate with than were the group not isolated.
A "port" is a set of meta-data and patches that are needed to fetch, compile and install correctly an external piece of software on a FreeBSD system. The amount of ports has grown at a tremendous rate, as shown by the following figure.
[fig-ports] shows the number of ports available to FreeBSD in the period 1995 to 2008. It looks like the curve has first grown exponentially, and then from the middle of 2001 to the middle of 2007 grown linearly at a rate of about 2000 ports/year, before its growth rate gets lower.
Approximate dates each multiple of 1000 ports is reached
|Number of ports||Approximate date|
4th quarter of 2001
4th quarter of 2002
End of 2003
End of 2004
3rd quarter 2006
2nd quarter 2007
Approximate number of ports at the start of each year
|Year||Approximate number of ports|
As the external software described by the port often is under continued development, the amount of work required to maintain the ports is already large, and increasing. This has led to the ports part of the FreeBSD project gaining a more empowered structure, and is more and more becoming a sub-project of the FreeBSD project.
Ports has its own core team with the Ports Manager as its leader, and this team can appoint committers without FreeBSD Core’s approval. Unlike in the FreeBSD Project, where a lot of maintenance frequently is rewarded with a commit bit, the ports sub-project contains many active maintainers that are not committers.
Unlike the main project, the ports tree is not branched. Every release of FreeBSD follows the current ports collection and has thus available updated information on where to find programs and how to build them. This, however, means that a port that makes dependencies on the system may need to have variations depending on what version of FreeBSD it runs on.
With an unbranched ports repository it is not possible to guarantee that any port will run on anything other than -CURRENT and -STABLE, in particular older, minor releases. There is neither the infrastructure nor volunteer time needed to guarantee this.
For efficiency of communication, teams depending on Ports, such as the release engineering team, have their own ports liaisons.
The FreeBSD Documentation project was started January 1995. From the initial group of a project leader, four team leaders and 16 members, they are now a total of 44 committers. The documentation mailing list has just under 300 members, indicating that there is quite a large community around it.
The goal of the Documentation project is to provide good and useful documentation of the FreeBSD project, thus making it easier for new users to get familiar with the system and detailing advanced features for the users.
The main tasks in the Documentation project are to work on current projects in the "FreeBSD Documentation Set", and translate the documentation to other languages.
Like the FreeBSD Project, documentation is split in the same branches. This is done so that there is always an updated version of the documentation for each version. Only documentation errors are corrected in the security branches.
Like the ports sub-project, the Documentation project can appoint documentation committers without FreeBSD Core’s approval. [FreeBSD, 2003B].
The Documentation project has a primer. This is used both to introduce new project members to the standard tools and syntaxes and to act as a reference when working on the project.
[Brooks, 1995] Frederick P. Brooks. Copyright © 1975, 1995 Pearson Education Limited. 0201835959. Addison-Wesley Pub Co. The Mythical Man-Month. Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (2nd Edition).
[Saers, 2003] Niklas Saers. Copyright © 2003. A project model for the FreeBSD Project. Candidatus Scientiarum thesis. http://niklas.saers.com/thesis.
[Jørgensen, 2001] Niels Jørgensen. Copyright © 2001. Putting it All in the Trunk. Incremental Software Development in the FreeBSD Open Source Project. http://www.dat.ruc.dk/~nielsj/research/papers/freebsd.pdf.
[PMI, 2000] Project Management Institute. Copyright © 1996, 2000 Project Management Institute. 1-880410-23-0. Project Management Institute. Newtown Square Pennsylvania USA . PMBOK Guide. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 2000 Edition.
[FreeBSD, 2000A] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Project. Core Bylaws. https://www.freebsd.org/internal/bylaws/.
[FreeBSD, 2002A] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. FreeBSD Developer’s Handbook. Developers Handbook.
[FreeBSD, 2002B] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Project. Core team election 2002. http://election.uk.freebsd.org/candidates.html.
[FreeBSD, 2002C] Dag-Erling Smørgrav and Hiten Pandya. Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. Problem Report Handling Guidelines. Problem Report Handling Guidelines.
[FreeBSD, 2002D] Dag-Erling Smørgrav. Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. Writing FreeBSD Problem Reports. Writing FreeBSD Problem Reports.
[FreeBSD, 2001] Copyright © 2001 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. Committers Guide. Committer’s Guide.
[FreeBSD, 2002E] Murray Stokely. Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. FreeBSD Release Engineering. FreeBSD Release Engineering.
[FreeBSD, 2003A] The FreeBSD Documentation Project. FreeBSD Handbook. FreeBSD Handbook.
[FreeBSD, 2002F] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. Contributors to FreeBSD. Contributors to FreeBSD.
[FreeBSD, 2002G] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Project. The FreeBSD Project. Core team elections 2002. http://election.uk.freebsd.org.
[FreeBSD, 2002H] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Project. The FreeBSD Project. Commit Bit Expiration Policy. 2002/04/06 15:35:30. https://www.freebsd.org/internal/expire-bits/.
[FreeBSD, 2002I] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Project. The FreeBSD Project. New Account Creation Procedure. 2002/08/19 17:11:27. https://www.freebsd.org/internal/new-account/.
[FreeBSD, 2003B] Copyright © 2002 The FreeBSD Documentation Project. The FreeBSD Documentation Project. FreeBSD DocEng Team Charter. 2003/03/16 12:17. https://www.freebsd.org/internal/doceng/.
[Lehey, 2002] Greg Lehey. Copyright © 2002 Greg Lehey. Greg Lehey. Two years in the trenches. The evolution of a software project. http://www.lemis.com/grog/In-the-trenches.pdf.