►
From YouTube: Cloud Foundry Community Advisory Board Call [Jan 2021]
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hello
and
welcome
happy
new
year
and
welcome
to
the
first
cloud,
foundry
community
advisory
board
call
of
the
year
january
20th
inauguration
day
in
the
u.s.
Good
luck.
Everyone
I
see
chris
is
here:
are
there
any
highlights
or
updates
from
the
cloud
foundry
foundation
this
time
around
a
couple.
B
Couple
minor
ones:
well,
one
we
just
did
that
cla
switch.
I
I
think
that
went
well
actually
and
I
think
everyone's
been
sorted
out,
but
of
course,
if
anyone
is
having
any
issues
with
the
new
cla
just
reach
out,
let
me
know
other
bit
of
non-news
is
we
will
probably
let
you
all
know
in
about
a
month
about
events
this
year?
I
can
tell
you
right
now
that
you
know
there
are
no
plans
to
do
in-person
events
this
year.
B
You
know
even
in
the
fall,
that's
that's
not
gonna
be
in
the
cards
so,
but
probably
in
a
month
or
so
we'll
we'll
have
dates
for
a
first
cloud,
foundry
summit
of
some
kind.
Well,
actually,
we
have
a
meeting
today
a
little
bit
to
start
discussing
such
things
with
the
events
team,
but
so
you
know
nothing
particularly
surprising
or
or
news
really
there.
B
Just
we
we're
we're
working
on
that
and
you
know
stay
tuned
in
another
month
or
so,
hopefully,
we'll
have
tentative
dates
or
or
something,
but
should
be
somewhat
similar
to
the
summits
we
did
last
year
as
we're
not
going
to
be
doing
in-person
events,
for
you
know
fairly
obvious
reasons.
So
yeah,
that's
really
it
happy
new
year.
A
Yeah
just
getting
this
down
so
the
cla
switch
went
well
thanks
for
bugging
me
about
that.
I
got
my
part
done.
I
are
there
still
any
people
outstanding
that
that
you
know
of
I.
B
Mean
the
major
contributing
companies
are
all
signed
and
squared
away
and
I've
just
had
a
few-
you
know
pings
here
and
there,
but
people
are
picking
me
on
slack
we're
getting
everyone
set
up.
So
at
this
point
I
think
you
know
it's
been
relatively
quiet
as
far
as
people
telling
me,
their
pipelines
are
breaking
and
things
like
that,
because
thoughts
aren't
cool.
So
that's
good.
I.
A
May
as
well
just
share
share
the
document
as
well
in
the
link
you
will
find
the
agenda
document
in
the
sorry
in
the
chat.
You
will
find
a
link
for
the
events
document
to
that
end.
Eric's
been
so
kind
as
to
include
all
the
pmc
updates
already,
so
I
don't
have
to
type
furiously.
Do
you
want
to
run
through
them
eric.
C
Yeah
sure
things
are
still
a
little
light
coming
out
of
the
holidays,
but
the
integration
project
teams
both
making
their
usual
progress
roland,
had
another
minor
update
to
cf
deployment
and
they've
also
been
they're
about
to
release
a
version
2.0
of
cf
for
kids.
There's
a
breaking
interface
change.
I
think
they're
removing
one
of
the
certificate
values
and
trying
to
stick
to
semantic
versioning
for
that
contract.
C
I
know
they've
also
been
resolving
some
regressions
that
were
noted
recently
around
environment
variables
propagating
correctly
to
apps,
but
those
should
be
out
soon
and
cube.
Cf
is
also
they've
been
bumping
dependencies
recently
and
they're
working
towards
another
minor
version,
which
I
guess
would
be
2.8.
C
And
then,
as
as
has
been
a
common
theme,
cappy
and
services
api
teams,
they
continue
to
close
out
the
remaining
v3
endpoints
that
are
analogous
to
the
v2
service
api
endpoint.
So
I
think
they
they
are
legitimately
almost
done.
C
Although
I
look
forward
to
being
able
to
say
that
they're
finally
done
with
that
track
of
work
and
that
v3
replacements
for
all
the
v2
apis
are
finally
in
place,
but
cli
is
also
doing
some
work
to
keep
up
with
them
as
they
keep
adding
those
endpoints
and
to
give
them
feedback
on
them.
Although
there
hasn't
been
a
new
cli
really
since
last
month,
another
couple
component
team
updates-
I
know
irini
they've,
been
exploring
some
things
for
new
tracks
of
work.
C
We've
talked
about
their
interest
in
consolidating
some
things
on
crds
for
some
of
their
internal
resources,
but
I
think
they're
also
looking
at
observability
and
then
they
also
have
been
maybe
a
little
prematurely,
removing
some
of
their
capability
of
doing
staging
tasks
and
with
in
some
of
the
incompatibilities
that
we
have
between
the
pocato
cloud
native,
build
packs
and
the
existing
cf
build
packs.
That's
but
qcf
yeah.
I.
C
I
think
the
the
shortest
term
thing
might
be
to
to
restore
that
so
they're
at
least
exploring,
and
considering
doing
that.
I
I
know
some
of
us
have
also
discussed
what
it
would
be
like
to
put
the
existing
cf
build
packs
in
a
cloud-native,
build
pack
wrapper
and
apparently
that
that
is
the
easy
direction.
But
I
don't
think
there's
a
reference
implementation
of
that
available
anywhere.
So
that
might
be
the
longer
term
approach
to
greater
cross
compatibility.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
a
really
great
bridge
for
for
cf
see
if
deployment
users
looking
at
cf4k,
eights
or
cube
cf.
C
Transition
fun
fact
from
the
diego
team
they
bumped
to
golden
115..
C
I
guess
golang
decided
to
get
stricter
about
some
of
its
http
encodings,
especially
with
respect
to
respect
to
chunk
transfer
encoding,
so
they
had
to
tweak
the
encoding
of
the
vbs
event
stream
to
accommodate
that,
I
don't
think
it
should
affect
anyone,
except
for
the
people
that
bumped
their
clients
to
goaling
115
and
then
noticed
that
they
couldn't
consume
the
event
stream
anymore.
A
Okay,
great,
that's
that's
good
to
know.
Have
I
I
I'll
ask
again
anyone
from
the
bosch
team
have
any
updates
there.
A
Okay,
we'll
assume
that
everything
is
fine
and
relatively
unchanged
same
with
extensions.
I
haven't
had
a
lot
of
stuff
in
from
the
extensions
pmc,
but
I
should
mention
that
there's
a
stratos
4.4
release,
which
is
very
similar
to
the
4.3
release,
but
some
bug
fixes
and
stuff
the
release
notes
are
up
there
in
the
stratos
releases
section
of
the
repo.
If
anyone
wants
to
check
it
out,
it's
a
pleasure
to
use,
as
always
I'm
in
that
interface
almost
every
day,
and
it
just
keeps
getting
better.
A
So
those
are
our
updates,
I'm
blazing
through
really
quick
in
case
anybody
wants
to
tune
into
the
inauguration
later,
but
I
do
want
to
call
out
a
couple
of
documents
that
have
come
from
barrett's.
Did
you
want
to?
Actually,
since
I
noticed
you
were
on
the
call.
D
I
have
just
one
short
question
in
between
especially
to
eric:
are
there
already
some
timelines
regarding
the
cf
api
v2?
Let's
say
deprecation,
announcements,
etc,
when
this
is
going
to
start,
because
I
get
asked
very
very
often
about
those
questions.
C
I
I
think
that
there
have
been
some
previous
communications
about
the
expected
timelines
for
deprecating
the
v2
api,
although
I
believe
also
those
were
published
a
long
time
ago.
It's
probably
worth
revisiting
them
for
relevance
now
that
we're
actually
at
the
end
of
introducing
all
the
v3
equivalents.
C
C
D
E
E
A
I
think
that
may
have
helped
extend
the
life
of
the
v2
api.
You
know.
We've
noticed
that
as
well
and
and
speaking
of
stratos
status,
4.4
still
has
not
broken
ground
on
the
v3
api,
so
that
is
still
a
consumer
of.
When
you
add
an
cfn
point,
it's
it's
still
on
the
v2
api.
A
C
I
don't
know
for
sure
I
haven't
been
tracking
recent
updates
around
those.
A
A
C
A
In
the
community
projects,
presentations
and
discussions
section,
I
thought
I'd
bring
to
light
some
things.
We've
been
discussing
in
conversations
with
sap
and
ibm
as
well
as
on
these
cf
for
kubernetes
sig
parent.
Did
you
want
to
talk
about
these
things
and
they're
linked
from
the
document
here?
I'll
show
them.
We've
got
first
the
thoughts
on
cf4k8
use
cases
which
was
discussed
in
yesterday's
sig
call
yeah.
F
Right,
so
actually
those
those
are
like
this
particular
document
is
one
that
I
sent
out
to
the
cf
def
mailing
list
somewhere
in
december.
I
believe
there
was
a
bit
of
of
discussion
also
via
the
mailing
list,
as
well
as
here
in
in
the
document,
and
I
I
I
guess
I
won't
be
repeating
the
sick
call
that
that
we
had
yesterday.
I
think
the
recording
should
should
be
out
there
either
already
or
anytime
soon,
but
to
to
give
you
like
a
brief
summary
of
what's
in
the
document.
F
This
is
essentially
something
that,
like
we
from
an
sap
perspective,
expecting
to
run
quite
a
few
cf4k
deployments
or
kind
of
moving
over
over
time,
people
that
are
today
using
cf
on
on
vms
that
that
we
think
are
kind
of
good
evolutionary
steps
once
we
have
like
feature
parity
so
to
speak.
Those
would
be
good
evolutionary
steps
to
kind
of
make
it
easier
for
us
operating
these
many
environments
to
to
to
kind
of
keep
keep
track
of
them,
manage
them,
run
them,
etc,
etc.
F
So
I
think
that
the
primary
idea
there
is
too
different
from
from
what
we
have
today,
which
is
running
the
cloud
foundry
control
plane
and
see
if
apps,
on
the
same
kubernetes
cluster.
The
main
idea
there
is
to
basically
say:
can
we
separate
those
into
different
clusters
and
then,
based
on
that,
there's,
there's
a
couple
of
follow-up
steps
that
that
are
described
in
in
that
document
and
in
the
c
call
yesterday
we
spent
almost
the
the
entire
hour
kind
of
going
over
the
document
and
then
having
a
follow-up
discussion.
F
So
if,
if
you
are
interested
in
in
cf4ks
kind
of
mid
to
to
long-term
topics
and
haven't
seen
the
document
you
might
want
to
want
to
go
through
it
and
it's
obviously
still
still
open
for
for
feedback
and
and
discussions.
A
Now
this
other
one
which
you've
graciously
given
me
co-author
credit
for
which
is
not
deserved
bernd
actually
wrote
this
one
up
as
as
well
pretty
much
solely,
and
I
don't
think
this
has
been
shared
with
the
sig,
certainly
public
information.
It's
just
observations
of
the
things
that
aren't
the
same
in
cf,
safe
deployment
and
cf
for
k8s,
where
and
qcf
trying
to
follow
cf
deployment
and
include
as
much
as
possible.
A
F
Yeah,
definitely
I
mean,
as,
as
you
said,
troy
I
haven't
shared
this
broadly.
Yet.
I
think
that
there's
there's
probably
also
some
follow-ups
that
that
eric
simon
and
you
want
to
do
in
terms
of
kind
of
taking
your
own
lists
and
and
trying
to
see
if
everything
is
captured
in
there
or
if,
if
we
need
to
to
amend
and
restructure
the
document,
so
I
guess
it
isn't
probably
ready
for
prime
time
in
the
sense
that
I
would
send
it
over
the
cfdef
mailing
list
already.
A
So,
with
the
strong
caveat
that
this
is
very
much
a
work
in
progress,
you're,
well,
people
are
welcome
to
to
read
it
and
and
see
see
that
that's
in
flight.
A
Okay,
I
I'm
very
grateful
to
stefan
who
has
offered
to
highlight
his
feature
narrative
for
us
here.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I've
seen
a
feature
narrative
come
through-
and
this
is
a
great
place
to
just
get
an
overview
of
this
sort
of
thing.
H
Yeah,
first
of
all,
maybe
so
what
did
happen
last
year
in
december,
I
made
a
proposal
for
a
new
feature,
which
is
this
document
here
so
find
granular
custom
platform
rules
for
cloud
foundry.
So
why
this
proposal?
Well
on
our
platform
on
our
cloud
from
the
platform,
we
have
a
lot
of
customers.
H
We
got
a
lot
of
feedback,
and
this
proposal
addresses
two
aspects
which
we
hear
quite
often
from
our
from
our
customers
and
the
first
first
problem.
What
we
have
is
that,
with
the
cli.
H
And
and
that's
one
thing
that
we
hear
quite
often
by
customers-
and
it
really
depends,
of
course,
on
the
on
the
use
case,
but
for
some
customer
this
operation
with
accident,
this
operation,
which
which
is
executed
accidentally,
can
cause
one
on
one
hand,
side
a
lot
of
effort
and,
and
sometimes
it's
also
very
expensive
for
him
or
both
together.
So
this
is
one
thing
that
customer
really
hurts.
H
The
second
thing
is
is
that
customers,
we
have
all
different
kind
of
operation
models,
how
they
operate
and
run
the
applications
on
cloud
foundry.
H
But
but
one
issue
is
that
also
with
with
the
space
developer
role,
they
first
of
all
want
to
address
to
support
their
running
applications
means
depend,
so
I
have
kind
of
operation
models
where
people
have
to
just
ensure
that
the
application
is
working.
Sometimes
you
have
to
restart
do
manual,
elections
and
things
like
that,
and
usually
these
people
are
more
or
less
operation
people.
They
are
not
often
not
owner
of
the
application.
H
You
know,
but
they
need
a
space
role
for
to
to
be
able
for
doing
metroid
activities,
and
one
thing
which
is
a
problem
is
that
they
can
also
look
into
the
environment
variables
of
the
of
the
application
and
by
that
they
see
all
the
the
vtep
service
environment
entries
and
with
that
they
get
also
access
to
credentials.
H
These
credentials,
usually
or
sometimes
are
very
sensitive
means,
there's
kind
of
backing
services
hosting
important
data.
Let's
say
like
this,
and
then
people
which
have
more
or
less
operation
role
will
get
access
to
that,
and
this
is
also
something
which
customers
do
not
accept,
and
now
we
are
thinking
about
yeah
how
to
address
that
or
how
to
handle
that,
and
we
came
to
conclusion
that
there
is
no
easy
way
to
work
around
about
that.
So
yeah
we
tried
out.
H
First
of
all,
there
are
some
restrictions
means
we
are
talking
here,
not
about
new
customers.
We
are
not
talking
about
customers,
let's
say
which
are
close
to
our
organization,
where
we
can
very
can
do
things
like
educate
the
people
or
things
like
that.
This
is
really
inhomogeneous
amount
of
customers,
yeah
which,
which
you
cannot
control,
where
you
do
not
know
what
exactly
what
we
are
doing
here,
but
we
make
with
experience
and
with
that
we
don't
see
any
way
to
to
work
around
that
came
to
conclusion.
H
We
should
change
something
here
in
implementation
and
when
we
had
some
discussion
on
what
we
can
do
and
of
course,
that
the
basic
requirement
is
that
that
we
need
a
permission,
a
powerful
and
flexible
permission
model.
H
There
was,
in
the
past
the
so-called
pump
project,
which
did
perfectly
address
that
requirement,
but
unfortunately
that
was
put
the
sunset.
So
it's
not
an
option
so
we
tried
we
came.
I
had
a
discussion.
What
could
be
a
minimal
change
to
address
the
issues
of
the
customers
came
to
conclusion?
H
Maybe
it
would
be
an
option
to
introduce
two
new
roles
to
the
cloud
controller
which
are
tailored
to
address
only
these
two
use
cases
also
with
let's
say,
with
a
background
and
asking
ourselves
what
could
be
realistic,
what
what
is
something
that
can
be
implemented,
so
the
idea
was
not
to
introduce
or
to
ask
for
the
prime
project
again.
H
So
we
had
discussion
on
what
could
be
the
minimal
change
now
the
proposal
is
about
to
introducing
two
new
one
is
called
space
application
developer.
The
other
is
called
space
operator.
Naming
is,
let's
say
I
would
keep
that
open.
There
was
also
already
feedback
on
the
document
about
that.
It's
something
that
needs
to
be
discussed,
and
so
that's
the
overall
scope,
and
now
I'm
asking
myself:
how
can
we
go
forward
or
what
could
be
the
next
step
with
that
proposal?
H
Can
we
come
to
conclusion
to
or
let's
say
say
to
result
like?
Yes,
the
proposal
makes
sense.
Maybe
it
needs
to
be
discussed
more
in
detail
and
yeah.
So
maybe
some
some
parts,
maybe
should
change
or
so
there's
already
feedback
about
whether
and
or
it
could
be,
but
there's
a
kind
of
decision
no
makes
no
sense.
There's
no
option,
we
don't
want
it
whatever.
So,
a
yes
or
no
decision,
yes,
and
because
of
it
depends
on
the
decision.
How
we
to
continue
on
that.
A
Have
an
opinion
on
that?
I
I
think
we
probably
have
how
many
people
are
here
that
probably
have
five
opinions
on
this.
I
know
I've
hit
this
problem
as
well.
I
know
the
stratos
team
deliberately
put
in
an
extra
step
for
service
deletion
because
they
were
encountering
countering
people
accidentally
deleting
services,
because
it
was
very
easy
to
do,
but
still
the
the
it
didn't
address
the
underlying
problem
that
there's
permission
to
do
it,
and
I
do
think
these
are
slightly
separate
problems.
A
Maybe
they
could
be
separated.
I
think
this
is
a
fine
proposal,
but
I
wonder
if
maybe
this
particular
one
could
be
handled
even
more
easily
with
a
feature
flag
for
allow
for
application,
space
developers
permitted
to
create
delete
services
or
not
or
maybe
allowed
to
create,
but
not
delete.
H
Feature
flag
is
with
something
that
can
be
configured
prioritic
or
is
with
something
which,
let's
say,
is
only
possible
globally.
D
Would
would
possibly
solve
this?
The
other
way
right
feature
flex
are
usually
global.
D
A
Okay,
so
so
there's
I'll
have
to
take.
A
Take
this
back
and
and
think
about
it
a
bit
more,
the
other
one
I
have
also
hit
with
customers
who
have
varying
degrees
of
of
security
requirements
right,
like
the
for
certain
databases
with
personally
identified
information,
application
developers
don't
get
the
credentials
and
they
aren't
supposed
to
see
those
and
typically,
that
has
been
solved
by
not
using
usbappy
to
provision
those
databases
so
for
production,
databases
using
cred
or
some
other
sort
of
credential
store
and
and
basically
working
around
the
normal
cf
create
service
bind
service
flow.
A
A
A
I
don't
know
how
I
don't
know
if
we
ever
figured
that
out.
I
think
it
was
just
an
idea.
We
floated
and
it
might
have
been
more
obfuscation
than
actual
encryption,
but
it
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
floated.
So
at
least
you
you
didn't,
have
shoulder
surfing
problems
where
somebody
sees
a
password
and
can
so
there's.
E
E
Okay
in
the
what
interface
in
the
capi
interface
is
in
the
cloud
cloud:
api
interface,
where
it
displays
some
of
the
gets
back
some
some
data,
it
has
the
ability
to
the
date.
What
you
get
back
is
an
encrypted
string,
but
it's
not
decrypted,
because
the
key
is
in
the
you
know:
you
don't
you
don't
have
to
keep.
A
A
If,
if
the
app
has
ssh
access-
or
you
know,
the
app
itself
could
surface
environment
variables
like
a
simple
and
you
know,
bind
to
the
service
and
then.
E
D
So
I
remember
there
was
one
proposal
to
solve
the
credential
issue,
that
was
the
use
of
gretap,
and
then
you
only
see
a
credup
passes
in
your
environment
and
in
v
cap
services,
but
I
guess
this
got
little
traction
at
least
I'm
not
aware
of
any
service
brokers
that
support
this
model,
and
on
top
of
that
also
the
applications
have
to
be
changed
to
go.
There.
C
D
Mean
it
would
be
maybe
a
feasible
way
for
let's
say
such
critical
things,
because
then
you
can
expect
that
applications
have
to
do
something,
but
at
least
the
service
broker
have
to
support
this
model.
You
have
to
somehow
switch
it
on,
and
I
don't
know
about
the
future,
about
cut
up
in
ceo
for
cats,
etc.
Just
a
moment.
A
Please
yeah
it's
kredhub's
in
cubecf
and
I
I
don't
actually
use
it
this
way,
but
we
put
it
in
there
for
this
exact
reason,
but
this
was
not
coupled
to
brokered
services.
This
was
coupled
to
user-defined
services
or
or
pre-existing
services
which
were
then
the
credentials
were
stored
at
cred
hub
and
then
were
accessible
from
from
the
application.
A
I
I've
never
actually
used
it,
so
I
don't
know
how
it
works,
but
my
my
initial
feedback
and
again
stefan
I'm
gonna,
think
about
this.
Some
more
is
that
these
might
be
separate
problems.
A
This
space,
application,
developer
and
space
operator
looks
like
a
straightforward
fix
to
the
the
the
basic
problem
and
does
cover
them
both.
But
I
I
wonder
about
the
popularity
of
expanding
the
number
of
roles,
because
that's
now
then
we'd
be
up
to
five
with
auditor
and
an
admin
or
alderaan
manager.
H
But
yeah,
let's
let's
yeah,
but
so
so
to
to
to
let's
say
you
will
end
up
in
multiplying
all
use
cases
and
as
many
roles
you
maybe
will
get
and
of
course
that's
not
the
goal
of
the
proposal
to
to
come
into
that
situation.
So
this
is
why
we
would
like
to
restrict
only
two
only
not
more
just
because
of
the
use
case,
because
we
would
like
to
address
a
real
customer
issue.
H
We
would
not
solve
the
problem
of
having
more
flexible
role
concept
in
cloud
foundry
yet,
for
I
would
say
for
kubernetes.
Maybe
this
is
something
that
should
be
rethinked
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
don't.
The
solution
doesn't
immediately
come
to
mind,
I'm
just
throwing
out
ideas.
I
have
not
a.
D
A
But
thank
you
for
surfacing
this.
If
we
could
all
take
a
look
at
this
and
actually
carry
it
on
to
people
that
we
know
who
might
care
about
this
stuff,
there
might
be
people
in
the
ausbati
group
who
have
opinions
on
this.
A
Some
of
our
colleagues
who
aren't
in
this
call
might
also
wish
to
express
an
opinion,
so
so
everyone
find
the
thread.
This
is
on
cf
dev
as
well.
There's
discussion
going
on
there.
A
Let's
all
see
if
we
can
solve
this
problem
as
a
community
in
a.
H
Yeah,
I
would
appreciate
that
and
troy
also
thanks
for
for
the
ideas
that
you
dropped
in.
I
will
take
them
and
have
a
deeper
look
on
that
to
see
if
you
can
achieve
something
like
that,
and
of
course
then
also
reply,
the
mailing
list,
or
so,
if
he
finds
out
something
better.
A
It
would
it
be
useful
to
have
a
custom,
our
back
scope
to
user
like
like,
be
it
for,
for
an
admin
to
be
able
to
create
a
role
which
is
then
they
could
define
which
of
these
are
enabled
and
disabled.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
effectively.
The
point
of
the
perm
project
is
that
it
was
going
to
allow
for
creating
those
more
customized
rules,
along
with
a
more
granular
breakdown
of
any
of
those
permissions,
and
really
the
the
main
impediment
to
moving
forward
with
it
in
a
timely
fashion
was
all
the
complexities
of
the
v2
cloud
controller
api.
C
C
I
see
so
there's,
maybe
the
possibility
of
even
revisiting
that
effort
with
you
know
now
that
v3
is
on
the
advent
of
being
complete
and
you
could
have
environments
where
you
you
turn
off
v2
or
maybe
those
rules
don't
apply
or
some
external
integration
doesn't
apply,
but
I
think
also
now
the
technological
landscape
has
changed
a
lot
in
the
past.
What
two
and
a
half
years
since
perm
started,
and
so
it's
probably
worth
reevaluating
the
need
for
that
and
any
kind
of
technical
implementation
from
the
ground
up.
A
Okay,
so
it
might
not
be
a
quick,
quick
solution,
right
yeah,
but
I
I
and
that's
news
to
me:
I
did
not
follow
the
perm
project
at
all,
so
this
is
a
good
background.
A
A
Okay.
Is
there
anything
else
for
open
discussion.
A
A
A
Bye
wayne,
okay
thanks
everyone,
and
thanks
ashley,
for
for
recording
this
and
being
there
as
always,
destroy
cheers
everyone.