 Welcome. It's Jenkins documentation office hours. This is the 5th of August. It's Asia office hours. Thanks for being here. Topics I've got on the list. Action items. News. Google summer of code. Look and feel updates. Change log an upgrade guide. Longstanding pull requests. And that's about it. So make is your schedule such that you've got about 3040 minutes or something like that. Yes. Okay, good. Well, so let's, we may hold ourselves to not more than about 30, but there are a few topics here that I think are of interest. I'm going to move this one. It might be of interest to Kristen down a little. In case she arrives and we can talk about it while she's here. Sounds good. Okay, so there was one that I wanted your feedback. Okay. Oh, action items. I've made no progress. And it'll be a while. So, LTS 2.361.1 is our 361 is the likely next baseline. It seems to be pretty reasonably well accepted seems to be very well accepted right now. Discussions are in the developer list. People saying, yes, that looks fine. We may have to do a few backports based on what we learn in upcoming weeks. The next topic though is is one that I wanted your guidance on. So what we've done is the Jenkins site has a new look and feel. Right. Okay, so this is how it looks. And the I like the look. But of course I was one of the reviewers. However, there's some controversy around that because what Daniel noted is that, hey, the font was changed, even though review comments said hey, don't change the font. And he's concerned that that indicates we should really revert the thing. And, and it also has some had some layout issues with, for instance, if we do this we look at security, click advisories and click here for example, and then do this one. Oh no that one, that one looks okay. So there are cases where it will show part. There were cases in the past maybe it's fixed now where it would show part of the text of the preceding line. It looks like that's been resolved so I think I think we're in good condition there. But for me, the, the open question was to Daniels Daniels proposed what we've got is we got to pull request pending. Let's show those so one is a change from the original submitter saying hey let's here's the here are the changes to fix a few things and to improve some stuff so one of the improvements was around. Let's actually I'll just show it on the top level page. If we look here. Notice that this, these two calendar items. Don't show the complete text. Oh, yeah. And, and the justification is a little off and edgy. So what's different the left and the right one there have different justification rules. Well, and so let's look at the fix here for this. So what the submitter noted is oh yeah here's how it used to look. Here's how it is now. So if we open up this environment we can look at it and see what the prototype deployment looks like. And notice now the gradient here around the edge and the text is fully visible so for me this is, this is a nice improvement. I agree. Now in terms of the font change, there is some change, because I'm going to. So this is new. This is after the fix before the fix notice that there was a, there is a change. Okay. And so I think he is also successfully brought back using system fonts and that's a good thing. Okay. Now I'm not visual enough to care dramatically about whether which of those it is but I like that this brought back the work that had done previous been done previously to switch to use system fonts for best resolution and for best rendering. Okay. So, so, but now the question then becomes. All right, we've got the request from Daniel that suggests. Hey, let's revert it. Because it wasn't reviewable. It must not have been reviewably because multiple reviewers would not have missed the font change. He says therefore it's safest to revert. My, my preference and I think Tim Jack Holmes preference and the preference expressed in Docs office hours. Europe earlier today was now let's go ahead and merge this change this next change in so that we get better rather than going back. Right. So the question to you is, you, you and I both have good interactions with Daniel right we trust his judgment. So, and that's a piece going against his judgment is rather uncommon for me but but I'm open to your insight. If it were security issue, I'd be hesitant to. Mm hmm. But I don't, does he have particular expertise in this I mean it almost sounds petulant that said we were going to change this and we do you, does he have any objections to this font. And it seems to me that there are the system font thing is a good thing to do. The system font is bringing back what was there before. So, so that's that's really one that that he wanted, and that I agree we should bring back we had done work about two or three weeks ago should be not connection he had done work to to switch us from separate fonts to to preferring system fonts for best resolution. Okay. Yeah that I, I don't have real strong feelings about that. Okay, so, so you would, would you be okay then if we if I went ahead and merge this one and then I'll have the conversation with Daniel. I would be certainly in this. So does this and merging this one does this give Daniel what he wants it. I'm not sure that it resolves all the issues that Daniel has seen, but it for me it's, it's an improvement and this is the second incremental improvement. It's a worthwhile thing to do. Let me do a quick look at the files change just to be sure. If there was, if we inadvertently undid something that Tim's a comb fixed. I think. Yeah, so here's the font change that's good. Okay, this thing where the aerial is taken from here and moved instead to here. So changing font priority I think is what, what's happening. Okay. Yeah, it's a, I mean that, I don't know for, for, for look and feel stuff you have to do stuff you have to keep reviewing what you have. Because, because a change in one thing will make something else appear different it's just, it's just it's back to all the reasons that user testing of interfaces is always manual and really time consuming. Right, right, good, good observation. Actually, okay so but now I look at this. See when I look at this text. I'm not sure I'm ready to check to that but I think that is significantly different than what we had before so I'm not sure I'm ready to sign up yet. Because I don't understand why this became so strong when I thought it was previously more like this. Now, now, but of course my memory for for visual stuff like that is is not nearly as good as it should be. I'm not that visual either. Yeah, okay so. I always like if it's going to be technical stuff. I want to make sure that you can easily see the difference between a one and a lowercase l. Right. And between and ideally a zero and a capital O those are the two like if it's technical stuff and other than that. And this is not this is when we're when we're using a code font. I think we have that distinction it's it's very good. Yeah, but right now. And what I mean the numbers you've got are like 2022 if you don't know that that is a zero instead of a capital O I'm not really interested. Right. Yep. So I may I may hold on it and I told the office hours Europe that I would have a conversation with Daniel to to get some sense of it. And, and yeah so let me, let me have that conversation with him. I think we're going to go forward. I saw his comment five I saw that in general it's good practice and then it moved. Oh yeah his comment there was hey, this is he was asking this question hey what does this actually change why are there multiple changes in the pull request. And what the author said oh hey there was, there was it was fixing this thing. And, oh we should change the font order get the font thing fixed as well and I wonder, maybe I need to go look at the font definition and see if it's still not back to the original that we had two or three weeks ago. Right. And he's right but I mean, he could say the same thing about that, that big PR that's sitting out there. There are certain things that are hard to do in miniscule separate pieces. Right. And, and, and that's that I think is the sense here of if in order to do it in order to do it in tiny subsections you end up doing it once, throwing it all away breaking it into partition pieces then do it again. And maybe doing it two or three times before you get to the point where you're ready, and many people don't have the patience for that kind of decomposition. Right. Okay, good. So good guidance so I will, I will discuss with general sense to proceed. But worth a conversation with Daniel to resolve concerns. Okay. All right, anything or anything else that you wanted to highlight on the look and feel topic. I don't think so I think it's a huge improvement. I like it. I like, I like the work that's been done I think it's very, very attractive. Right. Well, I like blue better than orange so the other one was always. Yep. Okay, next topic is the change log, and it's, it's been updated the pull request is is in progress and actually I need to do a quick review of it because oh I've already reviewed it good and been through it made corrections so the release for this is scheduled for next Wednesday. Excellent. So the next topic then was Google summer of code update. And this one I wanted to highlight one so really a cool conversation that's happening with some analysis that VHON Florida has done. So VHON looked at the document files that are generated and found that there are several eight that are the vast majority of size. Whoa. And some of these are so large that it's multiple minutes to get them loaded and process the JavaScript on them. Interesting. So he's now looking at ways to break these out so that instead of a five megabyte file, it becomes a series of much smaller files. And what he's realized is some of them contain massive duplication of the content of this workflow SCM step if I remember right is one that is duplicated in this one. And in this one and in this one so it's a compounding thing. Yeah. Okay. So, now, one of the, one of the other outcomes that came from this is we realized there's a bug. And so this bug report was submitted as a result of today's European docs office hours that we're missing a piece that used to be there in the pipeline steps for steps reference. And, and so VHON is going to go looking. We isolated it down to a difference between two different days. It was broken July 27 and worked July 26. So VHON's got a, a range of times to check to see if he can identify what caused the change and he's got log files. NPR is right. Right. And then he can submit pull requests to. So what what he saw is this thing now calls itself Jenkins core. And so that's the bug. So that's the bug. Any questions on Google summer of code. Very quick, except it's going while I take it. Oh, yes. Yes. VHON's work. Well, so back to showing it. Just how great it is. Right. The, the one that I'm in love with. And I'm not sure VHON understands why I'm so in love with this, but there it is. Yes. I search for checkout. I click that. And here it is right in front of me. Right. So, and just, it's a, it's a much better experience based on the work that behind has done. It is. And the left. Frame stuff and. Yes, right. The fact that it stays put. It stays in place while I'm scrolling. Very, very nice. All this stuff that's always hard to prioritize over other work, but. Right. Right. But it just makes the navigation experience better. Yeah. All right. So next, the only topics that I had remaining were long spent standing pull requests. This modernizing a plugin thing hasn't gotten any work from me this week, but I've got new volunteers. So Kevin Martens. We'll, we'll be evaluating it. And following the steps. So we'll get one more person. Assessing it. And. We need to be, need to be ready for the. For DevOps world. Because we'll use it in this 90 minute session. Right. And then are you also going to publish it as a doc at that point? It will. It should be published before that actually. So yeah. Last night I looked at the agenda and I clicked over to it. And I saw. It. It's all about the conference. When I, you know, at the very beginning of it, you start reading and it's all about the workshop at the conference, I think. Oh, oh, interesting. Okay. Well, so this was the workbook was originally created for last year's DevOps. Right. But, but the, the tutorial itself. Is hiding in a poll request. Let's go grab that poll request. And in the poll request, I don't think it talks about. Conference at all, but let me double check. No, not that one. My mistake. This one. Oh, this is good. This is good. This is good. This is good. This one. Oh, this is good. This is the old look. Oh, this is very good, Meg. I have exactly what I need from this. Okay. All right. So it is slightly different. Okay. This, this page already helped me. I hadn't had forgotten that this hasn't been merged with hasn't received the latest look and feel. So it's the old look and feel. So we got a nice side effect here. Now ignoring that nice side effect. So let's go to the developer guide. And here we've got the improve a plugin tutorial page. And it takes us through the various sections. And I don't think any of them make any mention of. Yeah, they don't. Good. Okay. I just started, I had 10 minutes. I just started looking at the beginning of it. Okay. Good. Okay. You're replacing the video with the one from this year. Is it you and Darren? Yeah. This is the other videos. Each of the videos is cued to that specific thing in the video. So when I start to play, you'll notice it jumps in 40 minutes into the video. So you're right on exactly the spot. Yeah. And are you going to replace it with videos from this year? Oh, no, no, no, because the videos that Darren and I did. Are still good and we'll just keep them. Okay. So, well, so. Meg, I think we've got a few minutes. Would you be okay if we looked again at your security docs? I think it's about time. Let's spend the last 10 or 15 minutes on that. Okay. What I wanted to do because they've sat. I suspect there may be some conflicts. So let's go take a look at them and see. That's a good. Yes. Okay. So. Okay. So restructure this one does not have. Any conflicts in it really. Got moved around what I bet is there's conflicts that. Can't help getting going to find. Well, and I don't know. Well, yeah. So, so it's, it shows two conflicts. And so would you be okay if we spend a few minutes trying to. Let's see what we got with them. Yeah. Okay, so I'm going to bring up a terminal emulator here and. 4612. Okay. Let's see. Okay. And this will have conflicts and they are. This one. So. Controller isolation. Okay. So how many conflicts just one. All right. So. So here's what the tech says it says. Jenkins controller is a web server where Jenkins is installed. Schedules tasks, execute management tasks. Files written when a pipeline executes are written to the file system on the controller unless they're out of. Okay. Okay. So. I think. I'm not clear on this one. So is this one that we should take both of them. Okay. I think that's what I'm thinking in there. Okay. To prevent builds from running directly on the build in. No, that should be fixed. I think rather than build in no directly. Oh, so from running. Directly on the built in note like that. Get rid of the directly afterwards. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Navigate to managing. Set the number of executors to zero and save. And also set up clouds or build agents to run builds. That's what's new. On which. Yeah. So this is. Okay. Take out the phrasal verb. On which to run builds or. Okay. Or that builds on as bad. Exactly that. That dangling. Dangling there. Okay. Make sure to also configure. Clouds or build agents. Okay. Where builds. What about just where builds run. Okay. Does that work? About like this. Future tense. It's for me, that's almost, almost inferred. I think it would be enough to say this. Right. Yeah. You're right. You know what, you're right. Otherwise it's bothering me too. And I don't know why. Otherwise where do you see the word otherwise? Well, so could we. How about a different phrasing. Configure. Clouds or build agents. So that. Builds. Have. Can execute. Yes. You got it. Or can start. Execute. Or builds. Have an agent. Or configure clouds or build agents where builds can execute. Oh, yes. There we go. Very, very good. Yeah. Get is brilliant in how it merges stuff. And every once in a while, it just misses something completely and I don't get it. Okay. So that has resolved that one. Now let's look at the next one. So this one. Oops. This one has been removed, but it was modified in the. Removal. How he modified it. Wait a minute. So the introduction to security. Securing Jenkins has been removed. Right. That's what this says anyway. Oh. Should that be. That's. I don't know. Did they move at some place or. Let's see. It's been so long, but it's every time. As I recall that had some interesting stuff in it. Okay. That wasn't helpful. Let's try it again. Okay. So it is. That is the only place that I see it. Oh, is was this your addition? Let's see if it looks like you're right. And I assume you don't recognize this one. Particularly since it's got references to the wiki page. Right. But those could have been added. Okay. Let's see. Are they, are they still. Val. I want to know what, what it looks like now. What, if this were merged, what would it be leave? What happens when you open the securing Jenkins section? Okay. Well, let's, let's do that. So. We can do a make run. I assume you don't recognize this one. Particularly since it's got references to the wiki page. Right. Let's do a make run. And we're going to see how it looks. Okay. It's been so much history and I'm out of it. I don't know. Right. Right. Fair point. Let's see how it looks. Okay. Here we are. So documentation. Securing Jenkins. Concepts. That kind of looks okay. Oh yeah. Yeah. Cause that's what I remember was that there was some stuff that I'd written. That was part of sort of Daniel's. When we spent a night together, where he educated me on this stuff and a lot of his wisdom that made it into the courseware and didn't make it into the docs. Okay. And I have no confidence that that courseware is ever going to see the light of day again. Yeah. Oh, that doesn't look terrible. No, see for me, it looks quite good actually. Yeah. Okay. So this is with the file still there. Yeah. So I think what that's telling us is. I should, we should add that file and not lose it. What does it look like without it there? I mean, they might have made a new file or just. Good question. Or they may have decided to start with security because. I don't, writers always want to do all this introductory stuff. And I think, and sometimes we're right. And sometimes we're not. Sometimes it's just noise. Okay. So there we go. I resolved that conflict by removing it. Now let's do the make again. So I'm not seeing any difference, Meg. Well, click on securing Jenkins itself. It's whether there's something in that index file. There we go. Yeah, and that looks like it's there. Yeah, this looks the same to me as there was before. Right. I'm totally confused as to what's going on, but. I think that means that the file. Is not required. It's probably been excluded from the table of contents or something like that. And so it's safe to delete it. Okay. So I'm going to commit that marriage. And push it. All right. Thank you. So we're, we're hitting the end of your available time. But we need good progress on that one. As now it's back in a condition where it can be reviewed. You're right. Yeah. And that's probably been changes, but. I did what I could. Sounds good. Things just keep getting better and better. Yes. Anything else before we close for today? Not for me. All right. Well, Meg, thank you for your time. Have a great evening. Always a pleasure, a good week. And I'll see you next week. Same time, same place. See you next week. Thanks.