►
From YouTube: Filecoin Core Devs #39 (Meeting 1)
Description
Recording for: https://github.com/filecoin-project/tpm/issues/96
For more information on Filecoin
- visit the project website: https://filecoin.io/
- or follow Filecoin on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Filecoin
Get Filecoin community news and announcements in your inbox, monthly: http://eepurl.com/gbfn1n
A
All
right
welcome
everyone
to
today's
meeting.
This
is
meeting
one
of
core
devs
meeting
number
39.
today
is
thursday
march
24th
2022,
and
with
that
we
will
get
started.
As
I
mentioned,
to
everyone
who
joined
the
call
before
we
started
this
recording.
A
We
do
have
a
relatively
light
schedule
today,
so,
as
usual,
we'll
go
through
updates
from
each
of
the
four
implementation
teams,
we'll
get
a
brief
update
on
network
governance
and
security
and
an
update
on
fip
27
from
jennifer,
and
then
only
one
discussion
topic
today,
just
wanted
to
give
everyone
a
heads
up,
but
I'm
going
to
begin
moving
to
codify
some
definitions
around
key
roles
in
the
fix
process,
including
core
devs.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
has
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
that
as
well.
A
So
to
kick
us
off:
does
someone
from
the
forest
team
want
to
walk
us
through
your
updates
for
the
last
two
weeks.
A
If
not,
oh,
it
looks
like
leah
is
joining,
so
why
don't
we
start
with
you
maxim?
Can
you
give
us
a
fuchan's
updates
there?
Anything
you
want
to
share.
Yes,.
B
Sure,
thank
you
kitten.
So
the
main
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
we've
been
able
to
sync
interrupt
network
interpret
using
fvm.
The
node
of
home
node
is
able
to
get
in
sync
and
stay
sync.
So
that's
some
good
news
but,
as
I
mentioned
on
the
previous
missions,
it
is
somewhat
easier
for
us
than
for
other
implementations,
because
this
is
a
natural
approach
for
us,
because
we
previously
we
have
used
sigo
bridge
for
using
actors,
and
now
we
have
just
switched
to
ffi.
It
was
not
the
cheerleading.
B
The
wheelchairing
will
start
with
the
milestone
too.
So
look
forward
to
that.
Also.
I
wanted
to
mention
that
the
full
home
not
plus
on
miner,
is
still
in
sync
with
the
minute
it's
working
stable,
it
is
stable.
Working
has
sealed
sectors
and
mining
power,
so
I'm
not
sure
we
have
mined
at
least
one
sector.
Yet
people
have
with
three
sectors,
it's
a
very
low
probability
to
do
so,
but
I'll
check.
C
Hi,
sorry,
I
didn't
add,
notes
basically
don't
steal.
Me
is
just
like
working
on
fbm.
Obviously
we
have
note
syncing
network
running
fvm
and
the
building
actor
v8
alpha
one
already
right
now
we
have
been
doing
a
lot
of
internal
altitude
on
both
fpm
and
actor
yourself
and
then,
and
we
also
shipped
lotus
v1151rc1,
which,
including
the
fvm
canary
like
the
tag
we
have
the
index
of
provider.
You
know
this.
Now
we
have
the
resource
manager,
merchant
notice
as
well.
What
else
do
you
have?
It
was
a
oh.
C
We
had
a
lot
of
snap
deal.
Improvement
basically
started
forever.
Now
can
easily
configure
a
snapdeal
queue
instead
of
like
constantly
upgrading
snapdeal
sector
individually,
so
that
was
super
cool.
Oh,
we
also
have
graph
sync
2.0
integrated.
You
know
this.
I'm
going
keep
working
on
fbm,
that's
the
goal,
but
that's
all
we
probably
should
give
update
later
on,
but
we
finished
and
then
I
said,
27
prototyping
and
analysis,
but
we
can
go
deeper
into
that
later.
A
A
All
right
so
moving
down
the
list,
the
venus
team
will
be
in
meeting
two
this
afternoon,
but
from
their
end
they
have
mostly
confirmed
that
they
are
also
syncing
with
the
fbm
they're,
also
continuing
to
work
on
venus
cluster,
which
is
again
that
module
for
helping
storage
providers
for
running
multiple
nodes,
and
they
have
continued
to
work
to
add
support
for
shared
computing
resources
and
snap
deals
as
discussed
last
week.
A
All
right,
then,
it's
over
to
the
forest
team.
D
Cool
cool,
okay,
thank
you,
caitlyn!
Well,
on
our
side,
we
are
able
to
sync
the
mainnet
with
v15
using
the
xp
fvm.
It's
still
a
little
bit
work
in
progress,
but
that's
that's
on
our
next
sprint
cycle.
D
We
also
reported
a
bug
in
the
fpm
encoded
library
and
right
now
we
are
working
on
making
forest
more
nimble
by
removing
the
duplicate
code
that
was
moved
into
fbm
and
the
built-in
actors
and
joining
the
efforts
of
maintaining
the
actors
together
with
the
with
the
falcon
stakeholders
yeah.
That's
mostly
on
our
end
happy
to
answer
any
questions
or
anything.
Anybody
has
yeah.
A
Nice
sounds
like
there
are
no
questions,
given
all
of
the
work
that
your
team
has
been
doing
lee
to
help
prepare
for
the
fbm
launch
the
m1
goal.
Do
you
have
any
outstanding
needs
for
any
other
teams
that
we
can
help
coordinate
over
the
next
couple
of
days,
or
is
everything
where
it's
supposed
to
be.
A
D
Yeah
not
at
this
point,
maybe
david.
If
you
have
something.
E
A
Great
yeah,
I
think,
there's
a
larger
conversation
too
around
shared
test
resources,
as
well
as
like
shared
audit
resources
and
lee,
and
I
are
also
working
together
to
begin
meeting
regularly
to
discuss
like
tpm
best
practices
which
includes
that
kind
of
standardization.
A
A
All
right,
let's
go
on
then
to
updates
from
the
file
coin
foundation.
Dudley
was
not
able
to
join
today,
but
has
no
updates,
which
from
him
is
always
a
good
thing.
There
has
been.
A
Oh
here
comes
dudley
now,
so
maybe
he
can
change
this
for
us.
On
the
fifth
side,
things
are
pretty
consistent
with
what
we
had
last
week.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
fifth
drafts
that
are
currently
either
merged
into
the
repo
for
final
work
or
exist
as
prs.
We
also
had
a
new
fifth
come
forward
this
morning
that
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
yet,
but
do
pay
attention
to
the
weekly
governance
updates.
A
If
you'd
like
more
information
about
what's
being
proposed
for
the
most
part,
we
are
still
just
continuing
to
focus
on
finalizing.
All
three
of
those
fvm
fips,
fip,
30
and
31
are
530
is
good
to
go
for
31.
It's
nearly
complete
and
just
waiting
for
final
testing
for
fib
32,
to
put
those
into
last
call
status
for
final
confirmation,
but
we
should
be
able
to
do
that
and
receive
final
approval
prior
to
the
the
calibsync
that
we're
working
towards
next
month.
F
F
If
you
continuously
change
scope
or
if
you
don't
have
a
scope,
they'll
be
less
willing
to
even
sign
to
do
the
audit
because
they
won't
know
which
engineers
to
assign
at
the
right
time
you
know
like.
Do
we
assign
our
rust
expert?
Do
we
spin
our
go
expert,
something
more
complicated
than
that
and
and
typically
orders
are
booked
so
far
in
advance
that
it's
really
difficult
to
switch
these
around
quickly?
F
So
I
know
it's
tough
and
I
really
appreciate
in
particular,
train
safe
for
outlining,
like
a
really
good
audit
preparedness
thing,
but
as
much
detail
as
I
can
get
is
going
to
make
it
the
best
results
we
can
get
on
this
particular
audit,
and
that's
I'll,
give
a
few
more
updates
on
that.
F
So
there
will
be
a
like
some
some
posts
across
various
bug:
banking
platforms
about
the
fvm
and
like
a
real
initiative
to
get
people
involved,
as
everyone
here
is
probably
all
already
familiar
with
role
discussing
this
like
anyone
who's
interested
once
the
fdm
comes
out
to
mess
around
with
it.
F
Please
do
maybe
maybe
phrased
in
a
little
more
secure
way
than
that,
but
we're
looking
for
a
lot
of
involvement
in
it,
a
lot
of
regular
bugs
as
well
as
security
bugs
and
there's
gonna,
be,
I
think,
we're
aiming
at
four
auditors.
So
there's
a
lot
of
effort,
a
lot
of
money
behind
this
so
hoping
to
get
the
best
bang
for
our
buck
here
and
not
just
you
know,
get
in
order
to
say
we
had
an
auditor
but
really
have
people
who
care
about
this
right.
That's
all.
A
G
Hey
I
teleported
into
jennifer's
universe.
Yes,
I
can
talk
through.
I
I
would
like
to
give
an
update
about
that
as
possible.
So
I
you
can,
I
think
it's
in
last
call
status.
You
can
speak
to
that,
but
basically
kind
of
catching
up
from
two
weeks
ago
or
telling
the
story
of
flip
27.
G
The
spit
was
opened
last
halfway
through
last
year
in
response
to
a
long-standing
issue
in
specs
actors,
which
is
that
the
label
field
of
deal
proposals
is
a
string
and
not
bytes
and
a
specifically
a
golang
string
which
is
not
enforced
by
utfh.
G
We
wanted
to
just
change
it
to
bytes,
then
run
into
integration
issues,
because
that
essentially
breaks
tooling
encoding
to
deal
changes
so
back
in
its
new
form,
because
we
do
want
this
change
to
land,
especially
once
rust
factors
become
fully
canonical,
and
so
the
proposal
has
changed
to
use
a
a
union
type
that
can
either
be
string
or
bytes
and
but
is
encoded,
but
is
encoded
kind
of
agnostic
to
the
the
existence
of
the
type
itself.
G
So
if
it's
a
string,
we
will
now
start
enforcing
this
utf-8
and
get
the
security
guarantees
and
safety
therapies
around
that,
and
if
it's
bikes,
you
can
do
whatever
you
want.
It's
it's
a
bike
stream.
So
this
proposal
has
now
been
pr
into
the
fifth,
so
the
change
of
so
the
so
527
has
kind
of
changed
slightly.
Indeed,
we
should
probably
change
the
title
of
the
tip.
I
can
do
that.
G
We've
prototyped
it
and
both
go
and
rust
and
kind
of
looked
at
what
the
integration
would
be
like
in
lotus
in
the
markets.
Reapers
and
it
looks
it
looks
doable.
We
haven't
tested
it
very
thoroughly,
yet
that's
kind
of
our
next
step,
but
yeah
that's
the
current
status
of
the
fit.
G
It
should
be
very
easy
to
integrate,
because
so
the
only
the
only
reason
you
would
have
difficulty
integrating
it
is
if
you
were
already
intentionally
using
non-utf-8
strings
in
your
client
for
some
reason
which,
based
on
the
current
script
of
the
chain,
no
one
is
doing-
and
I
don't
believe
any
of
the
implementations
here
are
doing
so
yeah.
G
It
should
be
a
relatively
painless
step
to
integrate
so
and
would
very
much
like
to
get
it
into
b16
so
that
when
rust
actors
becomes
canonical,
we
don't
have
any
unsafe
rostering
on
youtube
hit
strings.
That's
the
status
of
it.
C
We
also
like
to
reach
out
to
a
couple
like
very
close
ecosystem,
like
a
team
that
is
working
on
the
market,
to
confirm
with
them.
If
this
change
is
gonna
impact,
their
two
little
applications,
all
of
them
go
like
coming
back
here
saying
this
is
fine.
This
makes
sense,
it
seems
like
the
proposal
makes
sense
to
them
as
well.
The
impact
is
slow,
as
they
said,
there's
nothing
like
that
like
on
chair
right
now,
which
you
know
also
confirms
that
so
the
ecosystem
impact
basically
is
also
like
analysis
in
the
past
two
weeks.
A
Wonderful,
some
additional
details.
We
also
sort
of
stored
this
through,
like
the
builders
funnel
and
it
was
presented
at
the
last
few
builders-
calls
just
to
make
sure
that
there
was
no
tooling
additionally
that
we
were
unaware
of.
That
would
be
impacted
by
the
change
and
no
one
raised
any
issues.
We
also
got
general
positive
support
for
the
change.
People
understood
why
it
was
needed
nothing
negative
or
confusing.
That
was
raised.
That's
great!
A
A
So
right
now
the
only
thing
we're
waiting
on
are
final
parameters
for
the
gas
adjustments
that
are
coming
in
fifth
32.,
still
waiting
for
raul
and
an
update
on
when
we
may
have
those.
I
know
it's
sort
of
dependent
on
test
capacities,
but
we'll
keep
everyone
posted
and
again,
no
matter
what
the
goal
is
to
try
and
get
these
through.
Their
last
call
status
well
before
the
caleb
net.
Sync,
so
that
there
should
be
no
issues
when
it
comes
to
testing
and
implementation,
as
we
get
closer
to
the
actual
b16
upgrade.
C
I
just
have
a
question
a
quick,
quick
question:
is
it
necessary
to
couple
all
the
fifths
that
we
consider
for
network
upgrade
into
like
you
know
for
last
call
status
because
I
do
feel
like
572
will
take
some
more
time
before
we
can
figure
it
out
so
like
in
the
same
time,
shall
we
consider
like
moving
the
ready?
A
Yeah
we
can
so
the
reason
we've
talked
previously
about
sort
of
bundling
them
is
because
they
were
intentionally
written.
Well,
not
27,
but
the
30
through
32
were
written
sort
of
as
a
group,
and
I
think
raul
specifically
is
on
like
a
lot
of
communication
around
thinking
of
them
as
three
component
pieces.
A
Yeah
so
to
say
we're
doing,
27,
30,
31
and
then
maybe
having
32
join
later.
We
just
don't
want
there
to
be
con
yeah.
I
think,
like
bundle.
C
Like
3072
actually
makes
sense,
because,
basically
that's
the
one
big
fba
piece
I
do
feel
like
26,
it
should
be
decoupled
because
it's
like
you
know
unrelated
to
the
rest
of
history,
but
like
up
to
you,
obviously
either
it's
fine.
A
Oh
sure,
that's
fine.
We've
also
been
sort
of
explaining
the
the
change
or
the
sudden
interest
in
this
one
in
relation
to
the
fbm,
but
it's
fine
to
decouple
them.
So
if
you'd
like,
I
can
do
a
final
pass
through
and
we
can
start
like
last
call
tomorrow.
A
All
right,
then,
next
just
a
reminder
of
the
current
details
for
network
of
v16,
which
is
officially
named
skyerskier,
depending
on
how
you
want
to
pronounce
it.
I
also
added
these
details
to
the
thread
that
we
have
going
in
the
tpm
post
so
other
than
the
slides.
If
you
want
to
reconfirm
anything,
you
can
find
it
there.
A
No
changes,
there's
nothing
new
to
flag,
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
these
are
the
current
dates
linked
to
the
test
plan
and
then
again
reiterating
the
fips
that
we're
hoping
to
implement
this
upgrade
cycle
questions
or
concerns.
C
I
did
already
posted
a
you
know:
e-hour
community
forum,
about
the
network,
upgrade
I
already
posted
about
like
network
v60
they're
having
the
subjective.
Like
timeline,
I
made
a
huge
call
that
the
timeline
is
subject
to
change,
because
a
lot
of
the
scope
change
security
out.
You
know
bug
reports
and
all
those
things.
C
So
again,
this
timeline
is
our
current
aim.
So
far,
but,
like
you
know,
based
on
how
the
gas
parameters
goes,
how
the
testing
goes,
it
may
be
delayed
for
some
time
just
want
to
make
that
very
clear
and
also
community
post
is
up
there.
If
other
implementations
wants
to
add
links
to
your
release,
schedule
do
you
know
reach
out
to
occasionally
or
me.
We
can
help
with
that.
A
A
All
right
and
then
next
sorry,
there's
a
lot
of
text
on
the
screen
actually,
but
just
wanted
to
flag,
as
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
this,
call
that
I'm
going
to
be
pushing
out
a
new
piece
of
documentation
for
everyone
to
consider
sort
of
solidifying,
some
of
the
roles
that
are
outlined
as
pretty
significant
pieces
of
the
fips
process
for
core
devs.
A
This
isn't
going
to
need
any
real
change
other
than
to
just
codify,
who
is
considered
a
core
dev,
and
it's
also
to
outline
specifically
that
in
these
meetings
you
know
all
of
you
as
core
dev
contributors
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
feedback
and
potentially
kind
of
strike
down
fips,
if
you
deem
them
to
not
really
be
a
significant
priority
or
technically
feasible.
That's
not
a
change
at
all.
A
It's
really
just
to
make
sure
it's
as
abundantly
clear
as
possible
to
the
community,
where
there
may
be
a
change
as
actually
mostly
unrelated
to
this
group,
but
it's
an
understanding
who
a
fip
editor
is
and
codifying
their
responsibilities
more
formally
as
well,
so
that
we
can
begin
to
sort
of
move
things
along
much
more
quickly
and
then
also
begin
to
benchmark
expectations
and
standards
for
review.
Also
thinking
about
the
process
for
becoming
a
fip
editor.
A
So
that
again,
this
is
also
an
open
and
collaborative
process
for
the
community,
whereas
in
the
past,
as
the
network
was
smaller
and
governance
had
less
fear
participants,
it
was
something
that
was
just
sort
of
defined,
but
not
very
frequently
audited
so
again,
going
to
push
like
a
longer
breakdown
of
these
things
as
a
proposal
for
all
of
you
to
consider.
A
If
you
want
to
provide
feedback
but
did
want
to
bring
this
up
here
in
case,
anybody
had
any
ideas,
questions
concerns,
suggestions
for
the
group
or
that
you'd
like
me
to
take
into
consideration
when,
when
writing
up
that
initial
proposal,.
G
Well,
I
I
don't
want
to
once
again
ask
your
favorite
question,
which
is
what
should
be
a
fifth
but
right
now
the
what
is
the
fitbit
intersection
feels
like
it
leads
a
little
in
the
technical
towards
technical
tips.
Well,
I
don't
know
whether
kind
of
contentious
community
decisions
should
be
fixed,
but
if
they
are,
then
we
probably
need
to
include
more
than
just
technical
reviewers.
I
guess
I
don't
know.
A
I
think
what
we're
leaning
towards
right
now
and
something
that
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
is
how
we
differentiate
fips,
while
also
introducing
a
standard
for
like
frcs,
like
filecoin
request
for
comments
once
the
fbm
goes
live,
that
distinction
may
or
may
not
help
clarify
sort
of
the
technical
versus
non-technical
sort
of
changes
or
like
where
we
necessarily
need
harder
consensus
in
terms
of
initial
review
and
feedback.
But
your
question
is
a
good
one
and
noted.
A
All
right
again,
I
think
this.
This
is
really
more
of
a
procedural
thing
and
for
folks
on
here
who
are
only
core
devs
and
are
not
named
editors.
Currently,
there
should
be
zero
material
change
in
this
meeting
or
your
role,
but
again
just
wanted
to
make
it
known
that
we're
working
on
this.
I
think
it's
important
to
have
this
written
down
and
confirmed
so
in
the
meeting
notes
for
this
meeting
I'll,
actually
add
a
link
to
the
published
draft.
G
Sorry
I
definitely
joined
late
and
I
think
david
potentially
you
were
saying
something
about
kind
of
integrating
the
svm
and
working
closer.
In
terms
of
I
don't
know
whether
development
or
testing
or
auditing
and
so
on.
I
was
interested
in
that,
but
I
don't
know,
but
I
missed
what
you
were
saying
sorry.
E
E
So
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
adding
more
testing
for
for
the
access,
and
a
lot
of
work
have
been
done
there
already,
but
like
a
lot
of
it
was
they're
still
kind
of
missing,
still
not
in
a
good
shape.
Yes,
it's
something
that
we
all
benefit
from.
G
Yeah
totally
so,
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
this
up,
and
you
know
for
for
interesting
collaboration
on
it.
This
is
something
we
totally
need
more
of
what
would
help
like
what
would
because
right
now,
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
the
work
on
the
building
actors.
Repo
and
the
fdm
as
well-
is
still
kind
of
happening
from
a
small
group
of
people
that
are
talking
to
each
other
all
the
time.
What
would
help
so
we
do
have
a
test,
an
effort
to
like
test
the
built-in
actors.
G
A
bunch
of
folks
are
writing
tests.
Would
you
like
to
be
introduced
or
incorporated
into
some
of
those
plans,
or
what
do
you
think?
What
do
you
think
is
currently
blocking
kind
of
closer
collaboration
on
stuff
like
that.
E
Yes,
I
would
love
to
be
to
be
more
than
that
and,
like
specifically
I'd
love,
to
expand
the
way
that
we
use
test
vectors,
but
as
it
is
right
now,
we
are
only.
We
only
have
test
vectors
for
network
14
actors
and
all
the
other
actors
are
not
really
tested.
G
Yeah
we
are
working
on.
I
think
we
have
some
v15
vectors
now,
but
yes,
you,
I
think
you're
right,
so
maybe
maybe
a
good
next
step
for
this
is
so
the
fbm
folks
working
on
around
the
fm
and
the
actors
have
a
daily
meeting
and
actually
this
time
would
you
be
interested
in
you
or
anyone
else
on
your
team
be
invested
in
joining
those
meetings
or
obviously
anytime.
You
want
to.
I
think,
if
you
can
join
one
of
them.
G
I
think
that'll
be
a
good
place
to
it's
very
open-ended
discussions,
so
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
place
to
explore
more
ideas
and
collaborate
and
cooper
a
bit
more
on
kind
of
the
immediate
efforts
right
and
we
can
also
kind
of
share
the
current
testing
efforts.
It
is
all
public,
but
we
can
kind
of
take
you
over
the
current
efforts,
because
there
are
like
entire
actors
that
we
plan
to
start
writing
a
bunch
of
tests
for
that
haven't
started
on
yet
so
there's
a
lot
of
easy.
G
Jennifer's
dropped
a
bunch
of
links
in
chat,
but
we
can
kind
of
walk
you
through
some
of
that
stuff
and
would
very
much
like
help
with
it.
So
I
think
that's
great.
That
sounds
great.
C
You
wanna
dm
me
and
dm
your
email
address.
I
was
I
invite
you
perfect
thanks.
C
Yeah
also,
just
like
I
make
a
bunch
of
things
in
the
zoom
chat.
Basically,
those
are
the
see
we
track
things
in
github
tickets,
obviously,
and
so
we
kind
of
have
like
project
boards.
Just
to
you
know
for
people
to
know
like.
What's
like
you
know,
the
tvs
feel
free
to
grab
anything.
You
know
you
want
to
work
out,
and
anyone
if
you
want
to
join
the
ibm
huddle,
let
us
know,
but
we
would
love
as
much
as
help
as
possible.
E
Oh-
and
I
have
one
more
thing
so
sigma
prime
just
completed
the
security
assessment
of
forest,
but
most
of
the
code
that
they
reviewed,
have
have
been
moved
out
of
forest
and
either
into
the
building
actors
or
into
fbm,
or
into
like
some
of
the
supporting
libraries.
F
Yeah,
so
that
that's
I'll
take
the
blame
for
that,
one,
that
that
audit
was
essentially
like.
We
consider
that,
like
a
last
year's
audit,
there's
there's
a
lot,
as
you
said,
as
is
out
of
date.
We
just
wanted
to
get
it
out,
so
we
can
at
least
publish
it
and
you
know
put
the
stamp
on
it.
As
far
as
I
understand,
and
also.
E
For
the
intro
yeah,
but
so
we
can,
we
can
like
look
at
all
those
issues
and
then
like
track
down
like
where
the
code
went
and
then
then
create
the
issues
at
those
projects.
F
I
think
were
the
issues
not
remediated,
I
don't
think
so,
not
all
of
them
yeah,
so
I
think
some
of
them
were
designated
as
one
fixes
lee.
Do
you
have
more
context
on
this?
I
know
that
you're
speaking
directly
with
maddie
sorry,
could
you
repeat
dudley?
I
missed
you
there
so
of
the
the
audit
of
forest
from
last
year
that
sigma
prime
did
I
I
recall
that
there
were
some
won't
fixes,
but
I
think
the
the
audit
was
finalized
and
it
was
like
it
was
it
not
finalized
that
things
were
yeah.
D
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
so
I
understand
your
question
yeah.
So
some
of
the
fixes
that
I
think
like
that
required
fixing,
I
think
that's
what
david
was
saying.
They
have
moved
to
the
built-in
actors
report,
the
fbm
report,
so
it
kind
of
doesn't
those
fixes
specifically
for
the
forest
report
doesn't
make
sense.
So
we
have
to
kind
of
look
at
those
repositories
for
those
fixes.
If
that
makes
sense,.
E
Yeah,
but
that's
it
that's
all.
I
have.
A
A
All
right,
then,
it
seems
like
this
is
the
end
of
this
meeting
for
this
week.
If
anything
comes
up
in
the
meantime,
again,
you're
welcome
to
join
the
meeting,
that's
taking
place
at
4
pm,
pacific
time,
it's
midnight
universal
standard
time
or,
if
you're
going
to
be
in
bed.
You
can
also
message
me
your
question
or
issue,
and
we
can
add
it
to
the
second
meeting
and
get
some
consensus
to
share
back
with
you.