►
From YouTube: 2021 08 30 Docs Office Hours
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
Okay,
so
recording
is
on
welcome
everyone:
it's
doc's
office
hours,
it's
the
30th
of
august.
Sorry,
it's
the
first
of
september
in
india
standard
time,
and
is
that
right
or
is
it
31st
of
august?
No,
it's.
A
A
A
A
And
there
are
comments
there,
but
there
are
things
inside
this
pull
request
or
inside.
This
is
what
it
looks
like
when
rendered
on
screen.
So
no
proposed
change
log
for
56.82,
and
I
think
that
means
we
really
need
one
or
we
need
to
list
it
as
skip
changelog
and
it
doesn't
show
skip
change.
Log
and
oleg
says
the
change.
Log
looks
good,
oh,
but
this
is
not
okay.
So
what
we
need
to
do
is
we
need
to
adjust
this
one
to
because
the
changelog
automation
didn't
get
it
correct.
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
Yes,
so
I
was
just
wondering,
maybe,
while
writing
the
automation
script,
we
can
do
things
like
whenever
we
come
across
a
developer,
a
category
entry.
We
would
want
to
insert
a
references
tag
and
in
that
we
can
directly
put
the
value
of
pull
as
the
pull
that
we
have
received
previously
and
url
will
be.
A
Let's
see,
maybe
I'm
just
not
looking
well
enough.
Okay
in
the
change
log
yeah
see
this
oh,
oh
there
it
is
okay,
so
here
is
the
link
to
the
changelog,
but
what
it
lacks
is
it
lacks.
So
so
there
is
a
link
here
so
conceivably.
The
tool
could
could
extract
that
hyperlink.
That
is
in
here.
Let's,
let's
look
at
it
now,
so
this
hyperlink
right
here.
A
Yeah
yeah,
so
if
this
had
been
release.
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
D
Full
stop
there
full
stop.
There.
C
Okay,
so
I
might,
I
might
become
confused
right
now,
but
shouldn't
bug
be
fast
or
it's
only
when
we
talk
about
major
bugs.
A
No,
it's
it's
a
good
point
because
so
in
308,
rfes
precede
bugs,
but
in
307
bugs
proceed.
Rfes
and
307
was
the
one
we
edited
by
hand
right,
and
it
looks
like
all
the
previous
ones.
We've
had
generally
had
bug
precede
well,
no
yeah!
This
one
is
major,
so
it
here,
here's
an
rfe,
no
and
no,
let's
find
a
different
one.
Here's
a
bug!
No
that's
a
major
come
on.
I
need
something:
that's
got
same
level
here.
We
go
a
bug,
not
major
preceding
an
rfe,
so
I
think
you're
right.
A
C
Okay,
so
do
we
not
need
the
developer
semicolon?
Oh.
A
A
So
oh,
oh,
except
that
have
those
that
have
skip
change
log
so
updated
at
since
that's
a
skip
change,
log
bump,
machido
core.
A
A
C
A
A
A
No,
no,
it
really
is
just
called
java
native
access.
It's
certainly
delivered
as
a
jar,
but
the
library
name
is
java
native
access.
So
if
we
look,
if
we
look
at
the
other
occurrences
in
this
file
of
jna
you'll
see,
sometimes
it
was
rendered
as
all
caps.
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
Yeah,
oh
no,
okay,.
A
B
B
A
A
D
A
D
B
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
It
may
be
that
instead,
the
tool
always
copies
from
from
the
original
and
therefore
our
edits
will
be
completely
discarded,
and
I
don't
know
which
will
actually
happen.
A
D
A
B
A
D
A
A
A
C
I
think
we
didn't
put
the
full
stop
in
the
end
oops
okay
same
what
did
I
miss
there's
an
entry
by
jacob,
as
you
mentioned,
about
this
one
aborted
code
threshold
to
reverse,
trigger
build.
A
C
A
Think
right,
oh
oh,
the
full
stop
is
missing.
I
see
what
you're
saying
yes,
okay,
good
right
it!
You
are
correct,
it
is
got
it!
Okay!
Okay!
All
right!
That's
a
thank!
You
got
that,
but
I
think
isn't
even
it
even
worse,
that
we've
got
an
rfe
first
and
then
a
bug,
and
I
think
what
we
observed
is
the
preference
is
bugs
first
then
rfes!
A
A
Of
change,
log
items.
D
A
A
A
Yes,
okay,
I
think
what
I'm
gonna
have
to
do
is
talk
to
tim
tomorrow
to
see
how
he
envisions
this
being
edited.
So
it
may
be
that
what
he's
expecting
is
that
we'll
go
edit
the
pull
requests
and
make
them
better
somehow,
and
then
the
tool
will
automatically
read
from
the
polar
the
improved
pull
request,
description.
A
B
A
A
Okay,
so
this
one,
I
think
I
think
2.309
is-
is
reasonable.
I
think
we're
ready
to
switch
to
look
at
2.308,
but
I
apologize
we've
largely
run
out
of
time
dhiraj.
Would
you
like
to
try
something
similar
for
2.308
and
propose
it
as
a
separate
pull
request?
Do
you
have
time
to
do
that
or
is
this?
Have
we
run
out
of
your
time
as
well.
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
Neither
is
fine
either
either
is
fine.
I
have
to
check
both
of
them,
so,
whichever
one
you're
in
use
that
one.