 Hello Gary. Hello, how are you? Oh, good. How was the... how is everything? Hey Karim. It's going alright. Stop draining for a little bit today. Oh really? You got rain? Rain is now? Oh yeah, yesterday it rained. Actually the last several days it's been rain, rain, rain. Hello. What do you think, Karim? I think Matt is the PTO, right? Yes. Hey Justin. Nobody has video off avatars for some reason. What? Yeah, all I see is names. Maybe it's maybe I need to log in. Maybe that's the problem. Well, it's the same for me. This is the Hyperledger account, right? Or is this a consensus account? This is Hyperledger zoom account, I believe. I was also in the other chat that Dana was not able to make it. Or actually wrote that he might be. Do we want to kick it off or do we want to wait for Dana? I think since he was only a tentative, we should probably just go ahead and get started. Good. Let me share my screen. Hello, welcome everybody to this contribution call. To this the 14th, quick housekeeping. And it was noticed, recorded, is mute. Let's speaking, make sure any question raise your hand. I think this Matt is on PTO, but is there any update on PTO? I'm looking for the update. We were talking about the CircleCI billing. Yes. Yeah, give me just a second. I'm looking for the specific message about this, but I heard that we have addressed the looming. End of contract. Okay, let's see. It has is handled until the end of April. Josh Fernandez just confirmed that. So, even though the current contract says it's up until it's up in March 17th on Friday. It should be handled and paid for through April. So we should be good there. I think there was probably more than that one to talk about regarding transitioning. The CircleCI payment post withdrawals, but maybe we'll have to wait for a second, a next call to discuss that since he's out. Sounds good. Just writing some notes. Cool. Next topic, the CO issue. I don't think Sally's been working on. On the on DCO issues. I don't know exactly what the DCO issues she was trying to address where. Regarding if it's the merge into main like on a subsequent on a subsequent squash merge into main we were getting DCO failures there, and she's been addressing that. In the same context as she's been working on the GitHub merge queue. I think that there's a good updoor update on discord about what's going on with merge queue and there's some conversation about that. I think is that on the agenda. CircleCI billing. No, it looks like it should be next tangential. Yeah, I think the related I think the DCO issues are being resolved in the context of the GitHub merge queue currently. Sounds good. So those are related. So that's why I don't do the merge queue then. Or any update on that. I think Dano had actually expressed an interest in disabling the merge queue but since he's not here. I don't know it is. Oh, there is. I'm here. I think the merge is ready to go. It's missing an important feature. We can't edit our merge commits. We either have to use just the topic line of the PR, or we have to use the entire merge history of everything we've ever done in the process of getting a review. So we either have very, very verbose view of spotless spotless review changes bunch of useless data going in there, or we have no data going in. And my concern is that we are. Sorry. I think the third option is that you can take the PR description body as well. I don't know that that's a great option either but it is another option. That's an option. That wasn't expressed online. That would be better because you can go through finish editing it edit the description of the of the scene and get it committed in there. I just think if we're going to the option of told spew or single line it's a great disservice to anyone who's going to maintain this or view this in the future, whether or not they're a maintainer. Because sometimes all they may get is the commit log they may not have the whole GitHub history behind it. We need to think not just about the role of us, you know, going through the bill process we need to think of people who is using this code later on in the future. I know when I go when I splunk issues and I look at other code bases, all the time I go back to the commit log and see what they say in the commits. And I use the blame tree to see where things get changed to get a feel of what's being changed and we just lose all that context to go in and fix bugs or future maintainers who didn't write the code that's going in. And I think that one of the other options that was presented was a local squash merge and force push, and that is an even greater disservice I think because you actually wipe out that history. I agree that we want to do that. I think it might it sounds like we might have a potential compromise path of using the PR description. So the whole description or what it'd be like some subset of description or what we need I think it's full description let me find the docs I'll paste it a link to chat just sick. So, but we'll need to find another way to do our little checklist things then if we do that, you know, I've, I've added the commit log I've done this that and the other we could probably put that in is um, I don't have a body to always put a comment and said hey have you done this. And that's you know one way I'd be able to preserve those things because we're kind of using the description as a temporary scratch workspace, but I, you know, I'd rather get rid of that temporary scratch workspace or I'd rather wait until GitHub has this at a higher level of quality. And does this work in the merge cues. I believe so actually yeah I think it's part of merge cues if I could share screen for just a second I could probably show that the GitHub option for it. On allow squash merging that we can default to the pull request title commit details request title and description, or just the pull request title. So I think that the option we're discussing is this one. This one. Let's try the description. Okay, because I've got one I haven't merged yet let's go ahead and turn it on. Let's see what the pending PR is at the description. Zoom keeps focusing on me. Update comment. Let's try merge and ready let's see what the care looks like. What's your, I mean I've got a second flow through screen which is a confirm you want to merge when ready I mean that's the perfect place to put the commit log it's it feels like an unfinished feature on the part of basu basu GitHub. GitHub. Yeah. What was your PR number, by the way. 5202. Yeah, that actually is better. We just change what are we're ready to commit, because I mean we could review those checkmarks and then add the description to commit from there that that's the middle ground I'm looking for the workflow could be better but now it's at least possible. I'm not seeing the commit message on that PR just yet maybe because it's in queue but it's in queue you if you go to the branches. It's going to have these big ugly branch numbers in there DH read only q main PR 5202 big ugly hex. And then you have to click a few places to go through it. If I look at merge q I see the title says verify default logging is info 5202 open and in queue. Is that what the message will be. No, let me know. Okay. So my share in the right window. So let's see if we go to basu. We go to branches. You see this big ugly branch. We go to commits. We look at the top commit. So this is well go in. Wait, are you sure this is this is better than what we had before. Yeah, that is reasonable. No, it is now we see it now. Okay, let me go back to show you how I got there. So we go to branches. We go to read q. And then actually. Yeah, it's right here actually. So it's the big ugly branches in the process of being merged, where you can view what it's going to look like when it actually merges. So it sounds like we need to update our PR guidelines to call out that we want to have a description that's mergeable basically but when we use merge q. Right. Okay. So that that solves my big issue there. UX could be better but it's possible, whereas before it was just not possible. Solving problems on the call. All right. Did Matt drop off did we lose him. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yes. Let me just. I can release updates. Can I have just a small update before moving to the next topic so with Gary we are working on a bonsai refactoring. In order to improve the stability and reduce the memory impact of bonsai, sorry. And we have a PR for that so if some people want to test, I can share the PR. So we are trying to test this PR and to find as much as possible the issues before the mail so it seems to be very stable and it seems that it's managed the memory very well so. If some people want to test the PR feel free to test it. We are trying to to find all of the issue we have no with bonsai and yeah. So far the only issues that we had found, which was one of the reasons we delayed, adding it as a burning candidate last cycle, last release cycle was that some of the traces, the tracing end points would attempt to access closed in order to format the result. And we have another couple PRs that are addressing that. So if you discover anything apart from tracing with 5123 we would greatly appreciate knowing about it in advance because we're looking for all kinds of ways to try to break it. So far only the tracing end points have yielded any fruitful breakage. So we did some. We am Asian is helping us to pay files memory CPU, a lot of things like that we are also trying to stress tests. PR we tried with some validator with some normal node. So yeah, so if you have more ideas to test this PR feel free to do that. Nice. Cool. Just said that the PR also link in the dock. Anything else on the general announcements. Okay, cool. Any updates on the release update. Any updates in the time on the release update 231.1 went out with support for the Gourley Chappelle hard fork and an updated a fix for the RC one Sepolia Chappelle release. 23.1.2 is where we're anticipating tentatively we're anticipating main net Chappelle configs. So, well, presumably we'll be merging in the bonsai refactor as well. That's those the two primary things that are of interest at least to to Chupacabra team at least we're focusing a lot on is the bonsai refactor and the Chappelle release for 231.2. Anybody else have highlights for the 23.1.2 that we're targeting. Just to add, there are some backwards sync fixes, mainly one that was triggering the internal error. So what what happens with the ethical fix or Yes, it is fixed. The PR is open. The idea is to release with the next top point version. Awesome. Thanks, Fabio. Cool. You mentioned it from Shanghai planning update, or this is something that are relevant now very. Yeah, I don't know any Shanghai planning that's happening outside of setting the main net release date I think we are hours away from Chappelle activating on girly I'm not I'm not certain about that I wasn't tracking it too closely. We're about six hours away. So assuming all goes well there I think the only subsequent Chappelle planning Shanghai or Chappelle planning would be choosing the main net fork timestamp. Sounds good. It's ours well. So what's the readiness 4844. I know that's the next one coming up. Yeah. Was the people working on it. Is it really going to ship q3 is there going to be more of a q4 just wondering for planning. So the, the 444 we have joined at the latest depth net. And we are following the network. So the big question is about the SSC, how much of the SSC is going to be added to can cool. This could make the difference for us, depending. It could be at the default, because on the 444, we should be fine at the moment. But these. So the open question is the SSC. One of the interesting things coming out of the EOF land is there's discussion to solve the create issue creating a new create free that would acquire a separate new top level create transaction. And there's one we're going to talk whether, you know, how, whether we should do the two step EOF for the for the very large EOF or whether we should do one step and try and get everything in. And then there's a lot of other transactions that I almost want to say that opens a window of opportunity for us to get it all in. But I mean, basically the format would be there would be no init code. You put your code out there once. And then you would, you know, just independent of any execution. And then when you create stuff you would say I want you to clone this with this extra data. You would reformat and add the extra data on the end of it. And you would call the init code as part of that process. You would need to go to full factories, rather than having this init code state that is kind of weird where you can pass an arbitrary EBM. So hearing that, you know, the SSZ could be one of the issues. I think one of the things it considers that we might want to use this as an option to get more transaction types in but we might not. Yes. So in the table for what's coming down the pike from the EOF team, I think might be worth keeping our heads around. Do you think that delivering EOF with Create3 and SSZ pushes us more towards Q4? Yes, SSZ definitely pushes us to Q4. I think SSZ alone pushes us to Q4. And pushing to Q4 makes the big EOF, the one shot EOF possible because we need a few more weeks of design time to make sure we cover it and do things like talk to Slydian Viper and the ZK teams to make sure we're not screwing anything up for them. So I tried to get a hold of some of the ZK people at ETH Denver but trying to get a specific person in a booth is like impossible and trying to talk to people after talk is also impossible because everyone gets mobbed. I did get a hold of the ZK scroll, that was the community one. So there's ZK scroll, there's ZK sync, there's consensus, there's polygons and I feel like I'm missing one. Aztec? Aztec. Is that scroll? Was that polygons? That's not scroll. Polygon or mess? The scroll people are concerned about what's going on in EOF because their approach is to build a full-on EVM interpreter. So, you know, the new bike codes aren't going to be a problem and the new formatting isn't going to be too much of a problem for them. I think it's more interesting to the people who are like down to the Type 3 and Type 4, like ZK sync era, where Create3 actually works towards their model, ironically enough. But we just want to make sure we're not doing things in our static jumps or any of the other things that we're putting together. The theory is it's going to make ZK compilation of EOF EVMs easier, but I want to get confirmation of that before I start spreading that on all core devs. Dan, are you looking for a contact for the consensus ZK EVM? Yeah, I could just think it's me and Telegram or chat. Okay. One of the many, many chat apps. Yeah, it's not WhatsApp. I don't use WhatsApp. Got it. Maybe with like Declan or Mark or something, but you know more. Okay, cool. I think, yeah, I'm at the ZPTO, very important in your planning phase. I don't know if anybody has to say on this, but I think it's on the Zoom deck, right? If you think it's Zoom deck. Sorry, we can see it, Justin. I was just saying maybe we should postpone that to next meeting when Matt's back as all. Yeah, yeah. This one was just, it was raised by Diego on discord that the postman based base to API hosting is down. I was giving a 404. I don't actually know. I don't think anybody, I think Nico knew the most about it and he said that this was something that hyper ledger was paying for providing publishing. And that was the extent of his knowledge of that pipeline for getting that out there or having it paid for. So does anybody have a detail on that. It was also more expensive and see I believe it or not. Oh my God, just for a postman thing. Yeah. But I said, Holy cow. So that, yeah, I don't know that we get the value out of that that we thought we would. I mean it's great we were top 20 but I don't think it's a contributor. Web three signer and tech who both consensus is publishing in a similar way maybe we could piggyback on that process and on that that that billing I guess I presume that the consensus has a better negotiated rate than more expensive than see I, I would hope. Is that something that we want to pursue. Yeah, okay, I'm not going to stop you. All right, fair enough. Does anyone have any alternatives to postman that they like that they would like to have explored. Yeah me neither. Right. I've got a question about what's the value of this I mean we were I heard. You said it was top 20. So it's a really slick UI interface to do your Jason RPC calls. I don't like what swagger gets you for some of the rest stuff, but optimize for Jason RPC. Because Jason RPC is going to get something. So but do you think we were we're getting the value from that I mean we're we top 20 because there was a lot of traffic through there, or I'm just wondering what the, what the caught, you know, there was a lot of people using it and I don't think they were using basic I think they're using it, because it was just a general web three interface and they could poke stuff at. Okay. So if it was basic focused. I would have more heartache over it going away, but I think there was a large free writer issue. Okay. If we don't renew it we should probably remove it from the docs references. And if we do renew it you probably will need to update the URL, either way it seems like it's going to be a docs issue. If we're moving the URL solve the free writer problem anyway. So what are we doing are we moving it, or just changing the URL. Can we put just a, an action item in the notes for this that we're going to circle back with exploring the option of consensus. And that consensus is postman deployment process. And following up with docs. And if consensus is paying for it feel free to say this link provided by consensus is fair with the community I mean, don't be if it's if it's in consensus is named don't be ashamed to to teach your horn on it. Cool. What are you talking about this is mentioned. This thing is working. I think it was done by Nicola. The left. You have all of the method. So maybe we can just replace by this one. No. Yeah, I don't actually know what API that basu.hyperlegio.org looked like it might have been might have been largely similar. I thought that it was going to be more like a typical swagger where there was, you know, self documented Jason RPC. I think it's different from this because this I think if you pay for postman you get access to all of these. So they're still getting the revenue. I think it was a public front end that no one was paying for. Yeah, that the people we're paying for it put the front end up in the customers can come in anonymously. Right. Okay. So we mentioned already a circle, the next cycle. Yep, I think that's sorted. That's sorted. Then we get to the call timing. Then you mentioned like to moving all to the meeting one or two hours. Yeah, if we could. I have a week I thought it would work better but I looked at it and the only open day is Thursday and that's like the worst day to do this meeting at the same time because that's like during or after all core devs. And I don't know if that's going to be productive. If we could so there's a couple of options that I've been toying with Matt, one of them was to move it out an hour so rather than meeting at nine local, my local time will be 10. It would be harder on the Europeans, or we can move it two hours earlier, which would be harder on the West Coast people. The problem is, I have a lot of European people we have to work with. And again, there's a lot of European people on this call and it says like the golden hour for like reasonable time calls on both sides of the West Coast and the Eastern Europe. So it's kind of a difficult time to do. Another option was to go to weekly calls but rotate them eight hours. And this is the Australia call really only Australians call it and I used to call in when I didn't have high school conflicts where I was not taxing my kids around and helping out with their activities. But that's not something that I can do, you know, for the rest of the school year. And it'd be nice to get, you know, the Americans and the Australians on a call the Australians and Europeans on a call to kind of, you know, grow some more threads between the various groups. But if we had an eight hour shift, then you know, it'd be either the beginning of your work day or at the end of your work day, or a call that you're not expected to make. But but scheduling that I know that's something that like, I don't know if it's the identity group, one of the other groups in hyperlider does this maybe it's Aries, and they seem to have success on that Hart Montgomery could give all the details on it, and say who it was and what hours they picked. Maybe what we want to start doing like maybe postpone it like a couple of hours, one hour. I don't know like one hour. Yeah, one hour otherwise, either way would be good. Two hours before one hour after would be great. But I don't want to have people on the West Coast at an alarm clock and wake up at the crack it on unless they have to. And I don't think we have to but I think one hour is going to affect me particularly much I think I'm the only like far west, the coast US and I've been making trying to make an effort to get to the Australian time zone the Asia Pacific call. I'm kind of, I'm less inclined to want to go to an eight hour rolling just because I think that if it was an unpredictable time we would actually get less attendance. It's a it's a weekly held opinion. I'm fine with it. I think the easiest would be just have an hour offset. I think that's fine that will solve most of the problem. Now the daily savings time to doesn't make it better or worse for Europe. Well they're going to ship a couple hours. Yeah. That's fine. One hour will not change much. Okay, so I take this actual item to move the meeting one hour later also for the next one. And we have also the day, the hour change right time zones in two weeks. Cool. Anything else to add for all the points, other businesses release updates or announcements are done. So thank you everybody. See you next time. I got one thing I'd like to throw out there real quick. Just as a point of information. I've been looking into a lot of the discussions that we've been having around inversion of control and trying to decouple some things and I'm starting to do an experiment where we have a dagger to provide metric systems in base to the same way that we do in EDM tool. So I just kind of wanted to throw that out there and let people know that that was a thing that I started working on and you know soliciting any opinions. Expect to see a PR probably in the next week plus or so. We have a specific talk about that or it's on other channeling as well. It's kind of faint there Karim. Could you say that again. Do we have a specific channel in this call to talk about your work or I was just going to do it in contributors. It's, it's no different than any other type of software design question. Hey Justin, I added in the note and agenda. Awesome. Thanks everybody. Thank you.