 Hello, we'll give everyone a few more minutes to join. I don't. We'll give everyone a few more minutes to join. Yeah, sure. The agenda. Hi, Simon. Hello. We might kick off in like. One more minute. Again, by my clock, that's one moment. I will start. So I am already showing my script. Yes. Agenda housekeeping. First off, the antitrust notice. Everyone on the call should be already familiar with that. If you're not, there's a link. Mini is being recorded. Meet. Just. I don't think we need to worry about the raise hand. It was only a handful of people on the call. Feel free to interrupt me if you have a question or comment. General announcement. I don't have any. Does anyone on the call have any general announcement? Okay. The roadmap. I think at the moment we're all about cancun and my driving. And. Yeah, I think that's fairly up to date. Even though it hasn't been updated since February. Okay, release updates. We might actually. I was going to say skip that and move on waiting for Stefan who's doing the burn in, but. We can probably. Do the update anyway. So 2342. Started burning on Friday. As I understand it, there was an issue with the flat database. New feature. So there was a null point exception. A fix has already gone in for that this morning. So the plan is to. Restart. Like start a new burn and basically. Because. My understanding is that we really weren't flat database to be the. Sort of. Key feature in this new release. So without the flat database. Even though it's behind an experimental feature. We kind of want that in the release. So we're starting a new burn in. Today. Any comments on that. I think it's. I'm not too familiar with the PR, but I think it's. It's the heel mechanism for the flat database. Rather than. Well, so it's like. I think we've always had the flat database, but it's. I guess. Filling. Filling it to. Be complete. I think is what this is doing. Right. But yeah, it looks like it was. Some kind of refactoring was done. It is feature toggle, but there was some. Refactoring done. That affected the, when the feature toggles off as well. And that was where the bug was. And I think it was. I think there's a point around this. Around how we. Like reviewing tests PRs, especially big ones. I think what might have happened here is that. It was like all tested third tested and reviewed and stuff, but then changes were made as a result of the review. And some of the retesting was missed. I with the featured flag off. So I think. I mean, ultimately he kind of ties in with. The proposal about. The change to the release process, but it's. I think it's very onerous to have to retest everything like that. Yeah. Yeah. So. I think one, one thing we could do in the short term is. Maybe we do most of the code review before most of the testing, if that makes sense. You're probably always going to have to do some, some manual tests to make sure you think you're ready. But maybe we should kind of default to like getting the code ready to review before we do like the most extensive. Portion of the tests. That might help. I mean, this is all kind of some ad hoc and there's no. Very official process around it anyway, but it's just worth probably mentioning in chatting about really. So like, I guess it's relevant if like, if you're reviewing PR and asking about the testing and stuff like this. Which I've done before, like. I think it's probably worth bearing in mind, but maybe we should test at the end. Just before merge. Because one, one small line could break everything. Yeah. Yes, it's a fair point. I'd really like to see more of this automated because I feel like as long as it's manual and we're relying on, you know, individual individuals to, to always do the right thing, it's just, it's your own. Yeah. And this is how I guess might as well talk about it now. It's kind of related to. What I'm trying to get up with the burning process, changing the burn process that we like. We're, we are effectively relying on the burning process to catch things like this, which it did, which is good. But what that means is, especially the fact that it was on the weekend. Means that I feel like a release cycle. Well, the time was the word like lead time for, for completing a piece is actually really long because of that. And I think we got quite lucky with this one and it was really obvious which committed. It was because of the stat trace. But I think if you had, you know, multiple commits. Or maybe doing, you know, you know, big changes and they're all relying on the burning. Not that they are all relying on the burning, but you know what I mean, if, if you find the issue. And it can be quite difficult to, to find the issue. So basically. The long-winded way of saying, I'm agreeing with you, I think we should put time into. That's a regression test. Which is kind of the point of my proposal as well. So the proposal you're talking about is this one. So, yeah. Maybe I should wait until we get to that to carry on. No, I think you're right. It's definitely related. Yeah. Basically, I think where we are with this is that. I don't think there's too much push, push back around. Replacing the quarterly releases with a deprecation policy. I agree. So I think. I'd be happy to kind of do the final call for that bit and, and start actioning that after maybe the next. One of these calls in the other time zone. Yeah. Just give one final chance. That piece of it, I think is, is good to go. And then I was also suggesting about effectively. Well, keeping the main batch release below that says that, which would mean. Like. You don't really need a burn in because all the testing has happened before main. Now that is not really, we can't obviously do that right away. I think it's too error prone to rely on the testing and retesting and stuff in PRs to happen. Yeah. I do agree. There was some pushback about not removing the burning process. I do agree with that. But I think it'd be good to get like a commitment. But the direction we want to move in is to replace the burning with regression tests. Yeah. I like the idea of having the regression tests. That would be run on every PR that would make sure. Yeah. There's no regressions basically. And then that would definitely reduce the number of errors that the burning might catch. And maybe, maybe we would totally do away with the burner. I don't know. I feel like they're kind of two different questions. But yeah, I. Yeah. Yeah. It's all about speed of the feedback loop really. And the burning is very slow on, but it is quite reliable and catching some. A lot of bugs. Yeah. And when something does happen like this, then need to see how kind of painfully slow it is because it's going to be, you know, basically a week it's taken, it will have taken us to release by the end of the second round of burning. Yep. Yes. You don't find anything else. Yes. So then what are the next steps? So yeah, it would be good to get kind of like. A verbal agreement by people who are interested about. Working towards. We better regression tests and like. Getting that in the roadmap, I guess, would be the end goal with that. And yeah, we could trial the defecation noticing. As soon as kind of everyone agrees, I guess. I guess the next step is to not do the next quarter of the release. And maybe update the changelog with any breaking changes that would have gone in there. And decide how long they need to be. We need to wait. I think it's what I put in the suggested policies that we wait. You know, it's leader up to the developer to decide how long we should wait for their change that they want to make. So yeah, so formalizing the suggested policy, I guess would be kind of the next step in that. Okay, so. Sorry, did I miss any next steps? I think it would be good to sort of. I think that captures it. Yeah. Okay, cool. Awesome. Okay, we might go back up to release. Okay, any, any more comments on the release? Simon, you did the last release. Do you know, can we update the 2342 release that we already sort of started? Or do we need to, does the next one need to be 2343? Like, can we, can we patch this release or do we need to just go the next one? Good question. I think technically you can. I think maybe when this is happening in the past, we can just bump the version. Yeah, I feel like it's clear out if we just bump the version. And we say 2342 by odd burning. The next one's 2343. Yeah, it wouldn't have worried any, any issues for sure. Yeah, it's not too much. Yeah, I want to take that upline and double check. But yeah, I don't know if it's really a huge issue if we didn't announce it, but it's, you know, technically people might have pulled the code already. Yeah, exactly. Maybe especially on the docket. Yes. Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah, I will confirm offline. Okay, so next item on the agenda is about 244. Gabriel, do you want to give a quick update on that? Yeah. The major job desks are implemented like the outstanding desks that we had for DevNet 6. And the PR is marked as ready for reveal. I think the goal is to merge that into main. And DevNet 6 doesn't seem to be as smooth as it was supposed to be. There are some issues there and apparently they're kind of different for clients are following different forks. But that's being investigated. And the, it's not just basic, right? I don't think it's just so yes. Yeah, cool. So we're keeping up sort of. You know, we're on par with the other clients at the moment. Yeah, yeah, we are. Yeah, cool. Okay, so. Yeah. Justin is going to investigate and when he's back tonight. Okay, cool. So other business, we kind of covered the cherry pick. Avoid cherry pick release process. So the next one on the agenda is the debug login program proposal. Yeah. So this one is just about basically making debug level logging use actually useful for people who are trying to debug stuff, right? Yeah. That's right in a nutshell. Yeah. I mean, this agreement with this in principle, like, they might be, I just kind of repeating this here to, to, in case more people see it and basically shout if you got any objections and shout if you agree as well. And hopefully we can make this the kind of the official policy and then we kind of try and stick to this. Yeah, I think. There's quite to do still to the old existing books, but that's just, yeah, that's the separate thing really. Yeah. So what's kind of underway on that, right? There's already some PRs. And I guess if people develop as users notice things that are, you know, too noisy at the debug level, we could raise issues. Yeah. I mean, it just, I just wanted to kind of, I guess get agreement and socialize the thing to aim for for debug and then hopefully it'll get picked up in reviews and things. Yeah. And when you say the next steps after that one as well. Well, I'll, I can't remember if I put it on the agenda for the other time zone. Well, I'll do it at least once more there and. Yeah. If no one can object about it. What's the best place for people to give it? Like if someone says, yes, I agree. What's the best place to do that? I guess it's easy to track it. It's on the proposal itself. On the actual proposal. I'll be watching discord anyway. So discord would work as well. But yeah, I haven't particularly mentioned it in discord. I will do before kind of finalize it. Just to make sure everyone's seen it. Okay. That's everything that's on the agenda. Anything else anyone wants to raise? No. Awesome. Let's call it done. Thanks all. Thank you.