Thank you very much. And thank you very much for the invitation to talk in this seminar, which is, I have to say, has become quite a fixture in the number theory calendar worldwide. And it's, I think the organizers have to be thanked for this brilliant idea. Anyway, the material, the subject I want to talk about, and it's just going to be a survey, basically, I'm not going to go into any great detail, is a subject which has interested me for well over 40 years, nearly 50 actually, and which has had quite a bit of activity over that period. And even quite recently, so let me first of all start off by mentioning the first theorem that was proved of the kind I want to talk about. This is due to Hugh Montgomery in 1970. And this concerns the prime number theory, basically, the distribution of primary meta progressions. The psi function here is a standard function of prime number theory. I'm going to use that function rather than the alternatives of theta or pi, which I sometimes use, simply because in some ways it's closer to the analysis with the von Mangerl function here, which of course, as I think everybody will know is that is basically the prime power is the logarithm of the prime and otherwise it's zero. So basically, it's a weighted version of counting primes. Okay, so the rather interesting discovery that Hugh made was that there's actually if you if you take q to be large enough, there's an asymptotic formula for v of x q. And the main term is q x log x. And this is kind of remarkable in a way because it says, if you think about it, okay, you divide by capital q to sort of replace the sum here. And then you think we've got roughly q terms here. So this says that this this expression here is about the square root of x divided by the square root of q is actually better than the Riemann hypothesis on average. And that I think it really makes it sort of quite exciting and interesting in some regards. As far as utility is concerned, well, you're averaging over so many things that it's probably not so useful in applications. I have seen one application by George Graves, I think, where he was doing some sitting in several dimensions, maybe a form of some kind into two variables, where it was useful to have the sum over all the, all the residue classes modulate q. Okay, so the Hooli contribution came a few years later, where he found a much simpler proof and somewhat more precise result. In fact, if I just go back, you can see here this error term is not particularly good. If q is x divided by log x or something, this is already almost the same size as the main term. And what happened was the Hooli's argument made it fairly easy to isolate that particular term. But you can see that if q is very close to x, this term here also starts to get close to the main term. So you have it, you have an asymptotic formula, but it's not very precise or not as precise as you might hope. Anyway, so that's a feature of the result. But still, it is an asymptotic formula for at least if q is greater than x divided by log x to sum fixed power. Okay, so I've made that observation. And I should have said that there's a good reason why you can't expect to be a fantastically good asymptotic formula, because if q is, say, proportional to x, x over two, or even x over log x, well, the number of primes is smaller than q. So you don't have enough primes to go around in the residue classes. So some of these are going to be empty. And so this expression here, x over five, q is not such a good approximation to the psi function. Okay, if q is smaller, of course, you expect it to be a good approximation. But as q, as capital Q grows towards x, you can see that you get this diminution in quality of the result as a consequence. Okay, so those are things which will come up later in the talk. Okay, there was, of course, earlier work by Barban and then Davenport and Powerstam and by Patrick Gallagher. We're getting upper bounds for v of x and q. And it was closely connected, of course, with a large sieve. And you can get a result of this quality if q is of most x divided by the power of logarithms. And the actual power you require in order to gain the log x to the a here was worked out first by Davenport and Powerstam and then Gallagher got the bizarre result. And actually, as far as asymptotics are concerned, Barban had apparently stated an asymptotic result when capital Q is equal to x. I have to say I haven't seen this paper, it's in a journal which is not readily available to me. And it's actually quite short as far as I can tell from the details or from the reference. So I'm not sure whether it actually carries any proofs in it. And one can speculate as to how it would prove something like that. It's not, you know, writing down a proof is not that hard, but it does say it's not clear exactly which method he used. So I made this comment already. The results are not very surprising. I want to look at what ingredients are necessary in order to achieve a result of this kind and then see to what extent they could be applied in other circumstances. And one of the, if you look at Gallagher's proof of the upper bound rather than the asymptotics, of course, this is a well known proof. I think most people in the area are very familiar with it. It reveals two of the basic ingredients, very succinctly. So if you use directly characters to pick out the residue classes, of course, and apply all orthogonality and use the prime number theorem to deal with the principal character, modulo q, then you end up by having to look at a sum like this, where now you've got one over five q, and the principal characters are omitted, modulo q, and you can then replace the characters by primitive characters. And well, modulo is a little bit of detail which has been omitted. You have to worry about primes which divide q and things like that, but we won't concern ourselves too much in little details like that. And you can see that this expression here, by partial summation, at least if r is greater than l, you can reduce to this situation here, and to that you can apply the large sieve directly, or the character version of a large sieve, and you can see that you get x over l here, and then q over, well, q over m here times x log x, and if you take l to be a pair of logarithm, then you've dealt with a significant part of the problem. And then the piece out to capital l, you can treat with the Siegel-Wolfe's theorem, a standard result on primes and arithmetic progressions. So the proof is actually pretty simple for modulo the large sieve and modulo the Siegel-Wolfe's theorem. And I like to think of these as being Siegel-Wolfe's theorem, sort of corresponds in the terminology I'm used to, to major arcs, and the large sieve in some sense corresponds to minor arcs. If you think of Gallagher's proof of the large sieve inequality, for example, that in some sense, it corresponds to, well, Hardy-Lithwood method with and the intervals really correspond to some sense to minor arcs. Anyway, so you have these, these two ingredients, and we shall see those ingredients coming up again and again. Okay, how about the asymptotic formula? Well, there's a standard way of approaching this, at least it was a standard way for many years, is you just take your, your square and square it out. And when you do that, you get various sums, you should get at least three sums, right? And if you do some splitting, you get four. So from, from the psi function squared, you get this, you get the combination s naught plus two s one, which comes here, you can see these, the residue classes here, and it's the special case when, when the two elements are the same in the psi function. And then you get a diagonal term, which reduces to s two, and then you get the term corresponding to the main terms. Okay. And these s two and s three are rather easy to work out from prime number theory or attitude from elementary number theory at s naught, of course, from prime number theory, you can work out. So the crucial sum is s one. And it looks like a problem in additive number theory, right? Additive prime number theory, which is not surprising as what you'd expect. Okay. And the question is, how do you deal with s one? Okay, well, one way of dealing with s one is to rewrite this sum of collect together in what in one function, the prime powers whose difference is H. And then you can think of Q as dividing that difference. And so you've got a divisor function with the restricted range for the divisor, right? And this is exactly what Hugh Montgomery did in his, in his paper in 1970. And now this function r of x and eight, you'd expect to be able to say something about it by Vinogradov's method. Think, think of, well, actually the results of Tudakov, Esterman of Anticorp, where they showed that almost every even number of the sum of two primes, the basic proof of that is the corresponding function where you have a plus instead of a minus. And you have an L2 mean for that. And the same technique works for this function. And you can replace it essentially in L2 mean by a singular series times something which counts the number of real solutions here, x minus h. And this was actually worked out by Navrack in 1960. And it's what Hugh uses to, to deal with this sum. And then gets some asymptotics part. Okay. So that's it, technically, it's quite involved, of course, but it's, but it's, it's clear how one can do it. But this idea, this method was really superseded by who leads brilliant idea. So I can't. Okay, the top of the screen on my screen is disappeared behind the thing that says you are screen sharing. But anyway, maybe there's a way of getting rid of that. But okay, so, so you can probably see it and I can't. But who these ideas is, you can use the large C of the Gallagher results, say, to deal with the smaller values of little q. So you're left with the values of big q which lie between this q naught and x. And so, you end up in that s one function of having to deal with something like this. Now, and you, you, you can think of dealing with a difference of two of these, one of them has q naught and then I've asked you, and the reason that huli writes it this way is for a very clever reason, a clever idea. If you interchange the summations here, then write n minus m as q times r. So r is the complementary factor. And you can see now that that complementary factor is actually pretty small. And what he does is, is switch variables. I mean, it's a bit like, it's like, it's like Dirichlet's method of the, of the hyperbola. Only you don't have a small portion of a hyperbola to deal with. And you switch from the long axis to the short. Right. And the only cons, if you work out the inner qualities here, the only constraints are on r and it's basically bounded above by n minus m. And then you can, you switch that round again in the sums. And you see that you can produce a sum on the inside, an n, which is greater than m plus r q and less than equal to x. And the only condition, other condition on n is that it's congruent to m not r. But r now is no bigger than a parallel algorithm. So you can use a single whole fish. And yet, and it's a beautiful idea. I mean, the whole proof you could write down in a page, even, even with the detail. So, and it's, it's, it's, it's the method of choice is to this day for this, this kind of problem. Well, unless you run into some other difficulties, I mean, that's, you know, if you have a problem of this kind, this is the method you should choose. And if you have some other difficulties, then maybe you have to think outside the box, but that's not a matter. Okay. Okay, so I'm, there are questions you can ask about, okay, you have a fixed q, what can you say about things like this expression with psi function, for example. And I may mention that a little bit. But my main concern is the double sign in things like this. Okay. And to what extent can you extend these ideas to functions other than psi? Well, who he wrote at least 20 papers on the subject. 19 of them have this, this type, this generic title on the Bible and Davenport, how we stand theorem. And there's one other paper that I know of, which was in the proceedings of the Vancouver ICM in 74. You may have written some other papers, but certainly 20. And he was obviously fascinated by this whole subject. Okay. Now, the primes have a huge advantage over other sequences in that they're uniformly distributed in the reduced residue classes. And that makes life very easy. You know, you think of almost every other sequence that is of interest to natural in number theory, like the square free numbers, for example. They are no longer that well distributed into residue classes. They vary, at least according to the GCD of Q and the residue modules in the residue class. And some other sequences are even worse than that. We shall meet some which are quite painful in that aspect. Okay. So that is always going to be a difficulty, I think, in generalizing these results. Okay. I wish I could see this. Okay, so who has a paper, I think it's it's this third paper with the generic title, where he treats a rather general situation is not exactly like the primes, because now he's treating, if you think about what this means here, he's treating a set S, which has positive density. If you take Q equals one, you can see that he's saying that the density of his set is a constant times X. So it's just different from the primes and nicer than the primes in some sense. He has a criterion, which I don't understand why it's called criteria new, but well, there must be a reason for it. And it's basically saying, well, we're going to assume a single wallfish thing. We assume that we have, we know for relatively small modular, something about distribution of our set, its elements of our set in residue classes module of Q. And you see that he hasn't, his dependence is really the GCD of Q and A, not not A. Right. So it's still quite restrictive in some regards, but it does now include quite a lot of sequences of number 30 interest. Okay. The reason that he's able to manage this is because the large sieve allows it. You could always take out common factors dealing with a large sieve basically relatively easily. Okay. And his final conclusion is that you get an upper bound of this quality, that you get QX plus an error, which is where you save a lot, parallel logarithm, but nothing much more, of course. I mean, you can't expect to do any better than saving a parallel logarithm if all you put in is something which only saves a pair of logarithms, seems reasonable. Anyway, so this is quite interesting. You see the QX coming up here. And for the, in the case of the primes, we had QX log X. And I'm not giving too much away by pointing out that X log X is roughly the behavior of the vol mango function square. And here X or constant, I should say, is the average behavior of the function which occurs here. Okay. So, well, we'll come back to that. As far as the square free numbers are concerned, this is a very substantial history. And I will, I've listed all the papers in the bibliography at the end, those are interested. One can push the theory quite a long way for square free numbers, of course, as you might expect. And I've written out here the corresponding function capital V. There's a question about what main term you should use as an approximation. I think for many, from an analytic point of view, this infinite series makes the best approximation. It's a kind of singular series. It corresponds anyway, quite well to the, to the number, to the number of square free numbers which occur in the particular residue class A modulo Q. Okay. And it actually conforms to who is requirements that really this function should only depend on the GCD of Q and A. And you can see basically that that's true. Okay. So the result that one can get, the ultimate result, which is quite a lot of hard work, is you get a main term which starts to look different from the one we had, once we've had before. You see you've got X to the one over K, not X. And you've got a Q to the much higher power, not Q to the first power, but nearly the second power of K as well. So you get something which is looking different from what I just mentioned, where I said, well, it looks like the main term corresponds to the square of some characteristic function. Clearly not the case here. Okay. The error term also is quite good here, which you'd expect for something like the square free numbers. These functions f1 come out of the zero free region of the zeta function. I don't really want to go into detail. Okay. But you still have a lack of uniformity as Q goes to X. You see how the error terms start here, it starts to blow up on one. This becomes basically a constant. And this becomes, wow, it's pretty close to X squared. I mean, approaches X squared. So you get, you lose your uniformity again. And the reason is the same one. If Q is, at least if it's bigger than 6 over pi squared times X, there still aren't enough square free numbers to go around to fill all the residue classes. So this is not necessarily a particularly good approximation of that end. Okay. Okay. Another question which has been looked at is the distribution of smooth numbers in arithmetic progressions. It became a very topical subject in the 80s and 90s through various applications to cryptography, for example, to neurarical routines for factorization and stuff like that for computing the sizes of things. Also in wearing's problem, it became a useful tool. So the distribution of these things in residue classes is quite interesting and rather complex. You know, for example, if the GCD of A and Q has a prime bigger than Y, the Y, the Y smooth, there aren't any Y smooth numbers in your residue class. And finding criteria which match that is sort of tricky if you're dealing with general sums. Okay. So the only result I know is due to Harper in 2012. And that's actually an archive. I couldn't find anything in the referee journal. So I'm not quite sure what happened to that. But it has quite a nice upper bound here. And you can see again, you get Q. Now it's the size of the number of Y smooth numbers up to X. That's the main, that's the sort of main term, but it's not asymptotic form. And I wonder if there's an asymptotic form that has been improved. But I couldn't find anything in the literature. Okay. Okay. Yes. So there's an idea which was, has been floating around and was first, first appeared in print in the paper that I wrote with Dan Goldstone on the distribution of Psi of X, Psi of X Q and A, the primes, assuming the Riemann hypothesis. And there's quite a bit of work assuming the Riemann hypothesis because one can push things quite a bit further. And we found a way which was at least as good as the Hooli technique. And which has turned out to be useful in those situations where the Hooli technique doesn't necessarily work as well. Okay. So let me go back to the sum S1. And the go back to Hugh Montgomery's original idea of basing things on Vera Grados method. Okay. Well, this sum S1, you can write it as an integral with exponential sums. If you take f of alpha to be this sum Q less than equal capital Q, R less than equal X over Q, E of alpha Q, R and then G of alpha to be the corresponding generating function for the von Mangel function and use all folginality of the additive characters to compute this integral, you can see you've got exactly S1. And what Hugh did was equivalent to applying Vera Grados method to one of the functions G. And then the rest of the integral basically by a part of R's I didn't do, or Cauchy Schwarz and parts of R's. But there is another approach you can take to this. You see this function F. It's a very easy function to deal with. And it's very easy to show that it's small in the minor arcs. Much easier than using Vera Grados method. So you can actually avoid Vera Grados method completely and just use the estimate for F on the minor arcs and then apply Parseval to the function G squared. So it gives actually a proof it's longer than who did his method, but it's a proof which is still quite elementary. Doesn't use anything deeper than the prime number theorem. Okay. Well, maybe the Siegel-Volffish theorem to work out the major arcs. Okay. And it has some advantages of flexibility because it doesn't use the large serve. It doesn't require your sequence to have positive density or the density to have size which is close to positive density. So there's a lot more flexibility available there. And if you're dealing with something, say with the Riemann hypothesis, it's relatively easy to take advantage of that in the methods as well. Anyway, so that although it's not as simple as who did his method, it has some advantages. Okay. So let me just suppose that A sub n is a real sequence satisfying the L2 mean bounded by X. And let's have a Siegel-Volffish condition which psi of X is some function going to infinity at a reasonable rate, probably a pair of a logarithm or something like that. And you can compute the asymptotics by the method I just described of V of X and Q. And you get a main term which I've written here. I haven't said anything about the error term. The error term is somewhat complicated. And you see here, you get your a n squared, which is in the prime case of prime because this condition avoids the von Mangerl function. But still, in that case, you would have X log X here still. And in the case of square freeze, which this satisfies, you would have again something which corresponds to the square freezes main term. But now you've got another term here. And although I've written this function G of Q in this rather complicated form, it turns out that it corresponds to the major arcs. It's actually the singular series which arises from considering that integral I wrote down previously. Okay. And you can see that if the what you have here is something that corresponds to the L2 mean of the whole, you know, the whole integral. And this one corresponds to major arcs. And so this difference ought to correspond to minor arcs. So what this says is, if your functions are such that the minor arcs are large, then you're going to get something which behaves like QX. But if the minor arcs are small, as they are with the square free numbers with the K free numbers, then you get something that's smaller than that, substantially smaller than that. So you can see that the behavior of V of X and Q is kind of intimately tied up with the behavior of that integral I wrote down previously. Let me just go back. The integral corresponds to this. Okay. Very curious. And say the whole behavior of V seems to depend quite closely on this difference in many, many circumstances. Okay. So I've written out here what I just said. You have this sum here corresponds to this integral squared. And this corresponds to the major arcs of this thing. Okay. And the actual, the statement I made that this expression, the L2 mean should be bounded by X. Of course, I always have pointed out the von Wangen function is bigger, doesn't meet this criterion. But the same ideas will still work in that situation. And you can see that in the case of the primes, this main term is X log X and then you get some other stuff, which we know in the second order corresponds to the, in some sense, to the sum here. The one thing I should say, though, we know it's a well-known fact that the integral here when you have the von Wangen function, there's a positive contribution to the integral from the minor arcs. If this was dominated by the major arcs, you could prove the twin prime behavior. Okay. Okay. So I think that covers everything I've said there. Now, okay, the next thing I want to talk about is something that, yeah, this is a, in some sense, a detour. There's a remarkable paper that Hoodie wrote in 98, I think in Crela, where he deals with the third moment. Of course, it's not the third, it's not the modulus. It's just the third power of the difference here. Okay. I don't think anybody knows how to deal with the modulus. It's cubed. It has this weight 5q in here, but you need some sort of weight in there because you expect the thing you're summing to be dropping off to a relatively high power of q. And so you would summing over little q out to big q, you wouldn't get much benefit from the sum out to big q. And so in order to gain more benefit, you have to put a weight on which, which weights the larger values of q. And you might ask, why doesn't it use a smooth function here? That would be the obvious thing to do. Well, he has a lot of complications in working things out. And it turns out that things just cancel more nicely if we use Euler's function. Okay. That Hoodie runs into considerable difficulties with the process. The process is you cube out this pro this expression. So you now got four terms. And three of those terms you can do by methods are fairly well established, right? I mean, the part coming from the x over 5 cubed cubed is easy. The next part is easy. The one coming from the psi squared can be done just like the second moment. And then so you're left with the third moment. And that, that means you have to deal with a product of three long, or mangle functions. It turns out you can use Vinogarov's method. The depth is about the same depth as the Vinogarov ternary prime problem with, with complications. And Hoodie's problem is to show that these four sums add up to zero. Basically there's cancellation of the main terms and you get, and the expression is asymptotically equal to some collection of second order terms, which is the pattern that's established for the second moment. And it takes, I think the paper is 75 pages long. I think 40 of those pages are taken up showing that these terms cancel out. And as a consequence, the paper is littered with quotations from Dante's Inferno, which you have to, it's quite a literary experience to read this paper, I have to say. But not just because of that, but because of the language it is used generally. And I would advise any student of the subject to have a, proves this paper for things other than mathematics, because it's kind of interesting from that point of view. Anyway, it's a remarkable stuff. Okay. And that the, the idea that Dan Goldstein and I use turns out can be used in this, on this problem to give a somewhat simpler approach. And okay, so let me just say that the core problem for the primes concerns really this sum here for the second moment. And on the major arcs, you expect that this generating function behaves a bit like, well, if you're on the arc centered at A over Q, you'd expect it to behave like the Mobius function of Q divided by Euler's function of Q, twisted by a sum, which has its peak at A over Q. So you'd expect the term corresponding to A over Q here to be a very good approximation to G. And if you summed over all these, well, the other ones wouldn't add up to very much because they're points further away. So there's a technique which actually goes back to Hardy and Littlewood of approximating your generating function by this, by a sum of this kind. And was used extensively by, by Davenport and Heilbronn and others in the 1930s and by Roth Eton's later 1950. It was later superseded by other methods. But, but it's a useful technique. And here, we revived it for this situation. It makes quite a good way. The point is, it's independent of, when you write it in this way, it's independent of Q and A. But it's still a good approximation to all these places that you have to visit in the integral. Okay. So, okay. So the idea, remember, in the, in the, in the original Montgomery-Hooley result, we have a main term of X over 5 Q. Well, the idea here is to replace that main term by this expression, which is just a form of using this and then summing this over the N, which are in the residue class A modulo Q. Okay. Okay. Seems a little complicated, right? But it actually has this feature that in here, you have a function G-style, which is a good approximation to G throughout the whole of the minor arcs. Sorry, major arcs. Okay. I can't see that at the top again. Is there a way of removing this thing at the top of the page so I can see it? Anybody know how to do that? Okay. I could, I could stop using full page, I suppose. Full screen. Anyway. And notice, are you in full screen mode? Yes. Should I just exit full screen mode so I can see it? It doesn't really matter. Maybe that'll work. Yeah. Does that work? I mean, you can see the, the gubbins around the sides now. Maybe you can also close that blue thing that we, the cross. How do I? Let's see if it can work. Oh, yes. Perfect. Thanks. Okay. Now I can see the top line at least. So I apologize for the, oh well, technical problems. Okay. So if you use this, this new main term, you can, you can actually, you can then use Hooli's method of the flipping of the R and Q to prove this asymptotic poem. It's actually easier than using the hard input method. And you get a main term now of QX log of X over R minus a second order term. And you get an error term, which is now uniform as Q approaches X. Okay. And the thing is that the point is that this, this approximation you're using now takes account of the distribution in the residue class in a better way when Q is large. Okay. So that's an interesting, and then you can recover the original results by a bit of work too. But it gives an interesting approach, which is useful in quite a number of circumstances. And in particular, if you use this on the third moment, you can produce a very short proof of an asymptotic formula for the third moment.  Okay. So I've added that to you, the bits here with the Q squared X log X log R, you can actually put that down explicitly as well. So you can get actually quite good asymptotics. I've just been, I've just shortened it for the page here. Okay. Oh, something else you can see for the, this third moment is remarkable, you actually get better than the square root cancellation.  Something remarkable going on there. I've never really got to the bottom of that. Probably some cancellation going on because of the, of not having absolute values, but still. Okay. Oh yeah, I get some justification of what's going on here, but I think we'll skip that. Okay. Well, the comment I just made about square root cancellation. Okay. So I wanted to say something about the, this, this second moment of using this method. And you can see that if you write, if you write now this expression out, you don't need to split up. You don't need to square it out. You can write this difference as lambda n minus psi sub R of n squared. And you can write this directly as the, as as an integral. Anyway, I won't go into detail too much, but you can see that you can get a direct application or direct proof that this corresponds to the things that are going on and that the division into major and minor arts is a, is a crucial part of the problem. Okay. Okay. So here's some details explaining what's going on with these various, with the, with the third moment. It pretty much gives a little bit more detail about what I was saying. I don't think we're going to have time in front of a little short. Okay. Okay. I wanted to talk about generalizations. There are quite a few generalizations in literature, some to algebraic number theory. There's a paper by Smith in 2010 for number fields over number fields. The primes are now in number fields and certain properties. There's an example of Keating and Rudnick on an analog for function fields. And all of these cases so far, these things are well behaved. And I started having students look at situations which are not so well behaved. I had Mike Danck's look at what happens if the function you have here is the number of ways of writing numbers and sum of two squares. So the, the first moment is well behaved for R of N. Second moment is a bit bigger. It grows like X log X, I think. And he was able to work, gain an asymptotic formula for this. And it has a similar character to the primes we've seen before. Again, you can see the L2 mean coming up here for the R of N squared. There's the log X. Another example which is a little bit more complicated was looked at, I think in a special case by Motahashi and then by Pongtriyam, the divisor function. And the interesting thing about the divisor function is that the main term, the approximation, it doesn't factor into local factors. In the same way in the way that all the other examples do, you have a factor which corresponds in here. There's a mix of the local factors and the X. It's a real nuisance. And there's no way of avoiding it. So that is of interest in itself. And this approximation which we ended up using is again the major arc approximation of the kind that I know that we discussed before. Okay. And then with that you can get, it's a great deal of work to get an asymptotic formula, but you can get one. Again, if you write out all the detail, it takes out about a page just to write out what the main terms are. I've written here P of log X, log Q appears a polynomial of degree two, but in the thesis the terms are all written out. But you see again, you've got, it's uniform as Q goes to X. It's quite interesting. Okay. Then recently I had Penyang-Ding look at the case where now your function is the number of ways of writing a number is the sum of three cubes. And this is very interesting because we don't know the size of the second moment. If you look at this thing, all we know is that it lies somewhere between X and X to the six, seven, six. You don't have an asymptotic formula for this, but nevertheless it comes up, if we go forward, it comes up as the main term. So here we have an asymptotic formula where we don't know the size of the main term. And again, you have a smaller, this corresponds to the major arcs. This corresponds to the whole integral. And so this corresponds to the minor arcs, I suppose. But Hooley showed that there's a positive contribution from both. So we know that this is proportional to at least QX, but we don't know if it isn't bigger. Okay. And again, this approximation, which we used here, is really a major arc approximation. Anyway. Okay. So that's an interesting example. Okay. So all the examples we've looked at so far have automated you to approximately X, but you have Brudan and I recently looked at a case where the number, this number would be significantly smaller. We just look at r sub two of it and the number of ways of writing into some of two cubes. And you can see the lattice point argument tells you that the L1 mean is X to the two thirds. And if it's famous for a result of Hooley says that the L2 mean is also about X to the two thirds. The number of representations is either zero or two, basically. Most of the time, it's zero. Okay. So again, it's natural to use the highly lethal approach and to use this approximation here. And we find that again, you get an asymptotic formula by this time a constant QX to the two thirds, which corresponds to the L2 mean. And I should point out here that the major arcs here are smaller than the minor arcs. It's a well known phenomenon. They're only about QX to the one third in size. Okay. And the core of the proof uses this major arc approximation that really simplifies the proof quite a bit. Okay. And there's a, just recently, we've been working on something which is even thinner, the sum of a chafe power and the elf power, the various choices of KNL, same techniques, they're quite technically quite complicated, but it's doable. And I've just listed the results here. Okay, we should probably get, I should probably finish it in a second or two, but okay. So, okay. Oh, there's a question. Is this in the literature? Does anybody know if the Mobius function has been treated? I couldn't find it in the literature. Interesting question. Pretty easy to do, actually, once you've seen these techniques, but still. Anyway, so the first question I have is, is there a change of nature if lambda is less than a half? All the results we have are for when the size of this is bigger than X to the one half. What happens at X to the one half? Do things get worse? Better? Different? Are there any examples? Okay. Another question which has come up, is there an asymptotic formula for this expression? Where now you just, you fit, you fix Q and you average over just the A's, not the Q's. You better take Q to be large. And it's known that there's an asymptotically X log for almost all Q. Okay. Clearly, apparently, you conjectured this rather sloppy road for every Q without saying anything about the Q. It's rather easy to show that it's false if Q is small. I mean, for example, if you take Q equals one, you've got little words there, which says it's false. But I've shown that for a small range of Q, not going very far. It's false, but I think Hoody would have intended that Q is greater than X to the delta, maybe even that Q is greater than X to the one half. But I think it's kind of hopeless, but still it's an interesting question. We do know it's true for almost all Q for quite big ranges. Okay. And there's some results here, which I've listed as well. Okay. The second question I have is related to this. So if you know how to deal with the Montgomery-Hooley kind of estimate for a general expression like this, can you prove something for when you just sum over the A's, not both Q and A? Is there something in general going on here? Can you prove something? I haven't really thought about it very much, but it seems an interesting question. There may well be examples of sequences A and N where you can actually prove something. It would be interesting for somebody to have a look and see. Anyway. And Hoody may even have looked at some of this stuff, at least for almost all Q in some of his papers. Okay. So that's it. Thank you very much for listening.


when we talk specifically about universities, because that's the number of the examples you brought up, I'm very defensive of academic freedom and of tenure. And I do have a principal position here. My view is that universities and the higher education and adult education, lifelong learning and so on, they're about the critical pursuit of knowledge. And so much of what's happened over the reforms of recent, you know, years and decades has been diminishing of that. I want to come back to that in a second because I think it's really important within universities to raise the question of what actually who's restricting what can be said and what processes are. But we have to defend academic freedom and we have to defend tenure because these are the pillars on which you base a free exchange of ideas.  It is only the framework that's not kid ourselves in a moment when our universities are so capping hand for money and so like determined to get corporate sponsorship. It's only the frameworks of academic freedom and tenure that save these people's positions. And like a lot of the radical academics that get attacked in the media being totally frank, like I don't agree with them on lots of things, particularly postmodern academics who spend huge proportions of their careers attacking Marxism, socialism, the broader left, like I don't agree with them. But you know, they're really important. And one of the reasons they're really important. And I think it's very important for us to defend them is that they open doors. The number of people who go into classrooms with radical academics who simply put different kinds of texts there, that doesn't mean that's all left wing texting, right wing texting, whatever, but who are willing to put texts that are heterodox on their syllabuses, those open doors that people then begin to walk down and think about it. I mean, I remember I had that experience with reading Foucault and university. I mean, I have no time now for Michelle Foucault as a social theorist. But the fact that I was given the exposure to reading Foucault was actually pretty important because it took me down into Foucault and then the critiques of Foucault and then questions of radicalism. And then what had happened in the post sixties period, the nature of the welfare state and before the end of it, I ended up with, you know, quite advanced sets of understandings that are running counter to mainstream understandings of the 20th century. And it's because that door was opened. And so this is why we have to defend it. And we have to have a discussion more broadly about universities as well.  And I'm not going to defend all of that. We've just had a discussion about my belief that we shouldn't be calling for people to be sacked.  But there is a broader question here, which is, I remember the post crash economics discussion after the 2008 crash, when students had to come together and demand that their universities include some more left wing economists in the economics departments, some more heterodox economists in economics departments, because what they were seeing happening in front of their eyes day to day on television no longer made sense. It gets what they were learning in their in their syllabuses. And that is actually the reality of British universities, certainly the sec the sections of those universities that really have something to say about power, the politics departments, economics departments, and so on. The history departments, these are not run by in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases by like wild-eyed radicals.  If you have, and I have to say, you know, it doesn't mean I read quite a lot of historians who are not left wing, and I'm interested in quite a lot of like earlier social history. I think that, you know, BBC's program in our time and whatever is a really fantastic kind of way to show off the interesting historical discussions that are going on inside British universities. But it's a total canard, right, to believe that the British universities and their history departments are all being run by radicals. They're being run in the vast majority of cases by pretty conservative mainstream establishment historians. And you've got the odd radical voice here and there dotted around the place. And it's the same with most other departments, most other disciplines, there are a few that have more sociology and so on have more, but not that many. And that's the reality of what universities look like. It goes back to your point about money and resources and power. Because if you take UCL, for instance, recently, there's a bit of a fight there about adoption of the IHRA. Now, you might think that's a good thing. They should adopt it. You might think it's a bad thing. They shouldn't adopt it. What I think is inarguable, I don't think they should adopt it. It's my personal view. But that's kind of irrelevant. Because what matters is, like you say, if they get enough pushback on whatever decision, if corporate donors don't want to get involved, if people who are leaving their money, you know, sort of in their legacies and their will, alumni who are sort of wealthy and giving them money regularly, if they start saying, this isn't really acceptable. To what extent is there academic freedom at UCL to adopt one position or the other? Because money talks. Because right now, universities, to an extent we've really not ever seen before, have been subordinated to profit and to capitalism. Fundamentally, you need money to exist. Which 40 years ago, 50 years ago, wasn't necessarily the case of universities. Now, I'm not saying they were more enlightened 40 or 50 years ago. But like you say, the extent to which power, resources, money, inhibits freedom of expression, freedom of intellectual curiosity, I think that's inarguable. And it's clearly only going in one direction. Absolutely. And it's actually the structure of the modern university, which is the most restrictive thing in terms of setting the terrain for what can be said and who can say it. Because the truth of it is that the modern university, like the vast majority of big and important research decisions are made with corporate sponsorship in mind, at the very least, if not are made on the back of what funding is available from who to be able to do what research, which means that and this is not just in sciences. I mean, it's not just in the kind of hard sciences and natural sciences and whatever. It happens in the social sciences to some extent as well. Where questions are being asked over your ability to pursue things on the basis of what money is available. And then who's making the decision over what money is available? Well, in many cases, certainly, you know, when we think of the role that big pharma is now playing in universities, and I know we have all this debate about the vaccine and so on, we can get into a later stage. But whatever you think about that outcome, the process by which big pharmaceutical corporations can decide how huge amounts of university resources are deployed is obviously a question of determining who's allowed to pursue what research and where. And that applies actually across the university. The big money is shaping what is what you can pursue and what you can't. And you know, what else is shaping it is the process of university staff being casualized, university staff being underpaid for their work. And the fact that academics are being forced into a hamster wheel to produce more and more and more kind of papers, republicans in order that universities can rank in a certain way in league tables in order that then those universities can attract more international sponsorship and more international students and more money in as part of a kind of commercial racket. Those academics who are being forced into that hamster wheel, they can't actually go about saying what they want to say. They can't go about, you know, writing on the topics they really want to write about or pursue. Because what they're being forced to do is to simply churn out as many papers and as many kind of topics as they can in order to get the university more points in this in this system. And the same, by the way, with academics who have got precarious working positions or casualized and whatever else. Well, what happens when they go and say something controversial, their prospects of not getting rehired, their prospects of getting sacked and whatever, are all much higher. And the right doesn't want to engage in any of this debate. It doesn't want to engage in any serious structural debate about what is influencing the modern university and what it's pursuing. The left has to be able to step into that sphere. And this is why the freedom of speech discussion is important. The defense of academic freedom, the defense of tenure, we have to be able to step in and defend the idea of the university as a site of learning. The idea of not just learning, I have to say, in the university setting, because the truth is we have undervalued other forms of learning, we've allowed this idea that a degree is just a stamp and you're right to give you a professional job at some later point.  We have to break the idea of an education system that's totally instrumentalized towards the economy, the jobs market and profit at the end of the day, and fight for one that's about the critical pursuit of knowledge, which is the old idea, the enlightenment idea of the university. And that should be ours to defend because actually the biggest threat to the enlightenment idea of the university is the marketization of higher education, which is backed entirely by the Tories. But look, there are other aspects here. You've mentioned the IHRA definition. The Israel-Palestine debate is a hugely important structuring debate over speech in universities at the moment, that the right-wing free speech champions have basically nothing to say about. And it's not just the IHRA definition, which I agree with you, I don't think it should be anywhere near universities, I don't think it should be anywhere near universities, because you've got to immediately at that point, you are placing extraordinary limits on academic freedom by using a different kind of context. You're using the context about safe spaces and whether or not, you know, there is discrimination and so on, you're infringing on academic freedom discussions, which should be being held actually on their own basis. You raised the question of eugenics. Well, a good academic freedom discussion will deal with eugenics by saying, is this good, principled, decent research or is this pseudo-scientific nonsense? And if a person is engaged in pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no basis that they cannot prove, well, then I think you've got a much stronger case within the university of, you know, critical inquiry to make an argument against that person. And that should be the way in which things are dealt with. Not on the basis, for instance, of whether this person is creating a safe space or not for students, also because the safe space concept is a fundamentally misleading one. I understand why it came about, but it's misleading. It hasn't developed any kind of position of power for the left more generally. In fact, it's more often being used now, as we can see, to the discussion over Palestine against us and also to some of the prevent discussions. I'll come to that in a second. But it's also just not how these things work when we say, oh, this or that is not up for debate. Like, you know, a person's life is not up for debate. Well, you know, Irish people could have said that very easily in the 1980s and 1990s, you know, our rights aren't up for debate. Well, I'm sorry, but they are. And they were. We do need to win political institutional battles to try to defend them. But like when people were being shot dead for demonstrating for civil rights, whether or not you say your life is not a subject to debate is kind of irrelevant. It is a subject to debate. And you've got to both be able to win the debate in the public sphere on that question over, you know, your right to civil rights as it would have been in that case. And you've got to be able to win the political battles that actually, you know, secure those rights in the in the real world. I think that's spot on.  I think that however, like you say, I mean, does that does that mean I therefore think that scholars and the kind of the realist school of international relations theory that they should, because I don't really like them. And I think what they're saying is kind of, actually, this is kind of incontrovertible. If you look at the kind of the, the that pipeline between ideas and then sort of neoconservatives, which surrounded Bush and the White House, Bush Jr. You know, you could say, well, this is deeply, you know, unacceptable to people of Middle Eastern heritage, Iranians, Iraqis, etc., etc. And like I say, particularly in the university, you know, you can have these debates in various other institutions. I don't think the IHRA should be adopted by the Labor Party. I mean, that's again, just my opinion. But at least with the political party, you can say, we have an executive, these are our values, we don't think this is congruent with our values. That's a different argument. I think you're quite right to make this difference with the university where it's more about a sort of, there's a meta debate going on where actually fundamentally the point of the organization is not your congruent with our values, but actually we have a range of views, which we kind of try, you know, we try and enable and to inspire and hopefully that there can be productive agreements and disagreements. So I agree that freedom of speech, particularly in the context of education, I think is so important. And it's a little bit different to the argument so I'll swear.


Hi everyone. Welcome to the second Cloud Native SIG meeting. It's a regular SIG Cup where we discuss ongoing projects in Cloud Native Jenkins. Then we SIG Cup on these projects and make some decisions about them. So if you're interested to participate in the discussion, you can find all the links to the today's meeting on the Cloud Native SIG page. This is Jenkins IOS 6 Cloud Native and here you can find YouTube video. We broadcast on YouTube and there are the results, a document with meeting agenda. So you can find this document and if you want you can propose your topics there. If you have any questions during the call, please ask them in the Cloud Native SIG Gitter channel. We will be monitoring this chat and answering the questions. It's Jenkins CI slash Cloud Native SIG. We also have a participant link. So if you want to join the call, you can follow this link. But now we have a limitation of participants. So if you cannot join and if you want to ask something just ping in the chat and we will try to do something with that. So, okay. I lost the focus on the window. Yeah, today we have several participants on the call. My name is Alec Nashev. I'm the host today. We also have Carlos Sanchez on the call, Jesse Bielik, Rick Alex Nolont, Irina Tracey Miranda and I guess this is right. We have somebody else. We also have Jesse on the call. Okay. Yep. I just missed him in the list. So we have several topics to discuss today. I arranged the topics according to the feedback and Cloud Native SIG and discussions. So we will start from a Jenkins configuration code just to understand whether it is a Cloud Native SIG or probably another SIG. Then we will sync up on the status of external configuration storage. This is a new job which has been submitted something like 10 days ago. And then together with Jesse, we will provide a status update on external build login, which we were discussing during the previous meeting. If you want to get more information about previous meetings, all the links are also available here. And last but not least, we will try to set up a regular term slot for meetings so that we do not start doodle each time we want to meet. And yeah, probably we will have some other topics. For example, I propose to discuss some feedback from Jeff Pierce, which we have got during the last meeting. So yeah, this is the agenda I proposed for today. Does it look good to you or would you like to add something else? Okay. I guess no. So for meeting notes, we will be putting them to the document. So let's start from the first agenda item. It's configuration as code initiatives. So Evelina, maybe you would like to provide some context about this topic. Okay. So first of all, I am sorry, I moved into a new apartment and there is a very, very not good internet. So if I can't hear me well, Oleg can cover, but that's right. When I don't remember who was that suggested, we can have the link with the tools, Oleg or someone else. But when the proposal came up, there was configuration is called as a separate seek. And I was mentioned as a potential chairman. And I liked the idea. But then when it started, again, I can't recall who was that suggested that maybe we should try to be a part of cloud native seek. And I liked the idea because I wasn't sure how much we would have to talk about configuration as code. But I thought about configuration as code in the context of the plugin only. And Oleg pointed out a couple of days ago that configuration as code are also groovy scripts or maybe other things. So maybe we will have enough topics to talk about. And the configuration is called deserve. And I'm okay with that, but I would like to hear from you cloud native seek participants. What's your opinion if you feel like configuration is called is a is a part of cloud native or anyone anyone wants to give you to agree with the idea of having a separate special interest for configuration is called. So why I was thinking about having a separate seek? Firstly, jcask project has its own regular meetings every two weeks on Wednesdays. And as I really said, there are many other activities in Jenkins, which technically qualify as configuration as code. So it's, of course, groovy hooks, the entire pipeline and job they sell, etc. They are also configuration as code, whether it's the same sequel, etc. Another it's a separate topic and the configuration management tool. So they are a lot of them. And my point was that all of these topics are not really cloud native. They kind of prerequisite for Jenkins being cloud native, but they exist for years and they can be really used in common installations. So cloud native seek make confused particular contributors. Any other opinions? I think it depends on how much talks or you have or topics you have. I mean, if you don't have enough, it's maybe fine to add it as part of the planning. If you already have like, be by weekly meetings, enough traction, then maybe separate. Yeah, I believe that jcask itself has a pretty good traction. So we have about, yeah, maybe three or four participants at every call plus a number of watches after that. So for me, it already looks like an established seat. Yeah, I actually have not thought about what you have just mentioned, or like that. Well, Jenkins configuration is code is a tool that can kind of help with making Jenkins cloud native, but you doesn't have to have your Jenkins cloud native to his configuration is code or just DSL or anything. Right, but so yeah, it was my point, but I have to admit that these stories, and yeah, actually, whatever other story we do for plugable storage also can be used to outside or native. So maybe this point is not exactly valid. It's just a matter of placement for this story. Sorry for interrupting you. If you have enough, if you want to start with as part of the cloud native and then branch if there's a lot of interest, then that's fine, I guess. So Evelina, what would be your preference? I think they would kind of maybe transform our office hours towards a seek. Of course, we have things to discuss. But we for sure can find some time to have other things. And maybe it's also an opportunity for us to get more participants and more feedback. I yesterday had some about some UI issue, Jenkins configuration is code, and I'd love to have more people to present at some meetings. So and I'm planning to talk about it on Wednesday. But anyway, I shouldn't go into details. I think I prefer to under some of the objects. Okay, so what we could do, for example, if you want to keep the existing meeting time slot, we could just edit somehow here. So we had configuration as code into the list of seek interests, reference the existing JCASC subproject. And in the meetings section, we also reference meetings, which are already announced here. So in such case, you still have your own schedule, but it's referenced from cloud native seek. And in such case, you can just join the meeting sometimes and provide update to other participants. I think it would be useful for everybody. Yeah. Is everybody fine with it? There's no particular reason to have it not be part of this. No, I don't think so. It's just I sometimes I feel that topics maybe like very configuration is code specific. And that's or has I agree with the point where Olek presents his vision of this code. Yeah, cool. Okay. So can I say that we agreed on that? No. Okay. So yeah, let's keep it as is. Yep. Would you be able to do that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Once you create all requests, please ping me. You'll review and merge them as soon as possible. Sure. Thank you. Okay. Anything else on this topic? I guess no. So the next one is about configuration storage. So just to provide some background, I have created a JEP two weeks ago. So the idea of this JEP is to document how external configuration storage would look like in Jenkins. There are some pull requests from Alex who's also on the call. So yeah, there is a pending pull request to Jenkins core, which poses to move XML file in the hierarchy of XML storage, file storage, storage, so that yeah, it becomes pluggable. As you may see, I have looked at this pull request mostly due to binary compatibility issues, but I definitely agree with the idea that it's something important for Jenkins, especially if we talk about pluggable storages because external configuration storage allows to have some disaster recovery and generally you can get rid of many small XML files with configurations on the disk. So that stories like multi-tenancy also become easier. So I have drafted a JEP and in this JEP, I have tried to document my vision and actually I sent a message to the SIG mailing list, yeah, also two weeks ago. And what I wanted to do this meeting to just answer any questions, if any, and then maybe to sync up with Alex on reference implementations and on how we proceed with this JEP. So Alex, are you around? Oops, wrong button. Yeah, hi, I started looking at it and I'm trying to get some more hours from my employer to work on this. But now that the weather has improved drastically, I'll be able to do more work on my spare time. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, so regarding the discussion, I have started it in the SIG mailing list. So I've got some feedback from James, JC and Baptiste, but generally it's rather about what would be the priorities. I have asked several questions, which I propose to briefly discuss. Firstly, should it be a plugin or a library? And then, yeah, some implementation specifics. But I think that this one is a real key question to the current design, because if we move configuration storage to a plugin now, we get into all kinds of issues with configuration loading, because configuration loading obviously has to happen very early before the most of the configurations are loaded, because we need to load Jenkins config XML and other such files. So in my design, I assumed that whatever configuration storage implementation will be rather a library, not a plugin. So it means that you will not be able to install it from Update Center, but there are other ways. So for example, packaging, it or just adding a library to the cloud class pass. So I consider it as a feasible workaround until we have a pluggable core components story implemented. So this is an old story started by TK, which has been hacked during the Jenkins world hackathon one year ago. So generally there is a standard pull request, which needs review and a lot of testing to be integrated. But without this pull request, we cannot make this logic as a plugin. At least it's my understanding. Okay, so Jason, maybe you would like to just comment? Yeah, I'm not sure that's true. Well, I think at least we should be experimented with. I think you actually can have a plugin. You must if not all of the file replacement, there are probably some special cases, but yeah, definitely, I mean, definitely it's safer to do it as a Jenkins module. Yeah, so we already have Jenkins model packaging logic. So in the core, we have several components. Check code models. So yeah, that is a Cgd model windows agent installer, etc, etc. The most of these models could be actually converted to plugins at the current state. But yeah, we have an abstraction layer, which just gets packaged to the JAR file and which can be managed then in Jenkins. But yeah, generally you can just build a library. Okay, so Alex, since you proposed the original pull request, what do you think about the models? Is it reasonable to you or do you need a plugin? It seems pretty reasonable, especially since pluggable core component isn't available yet. Yeah, so yeah, I'm not sure what the current status of pluggable core components. Yeah, that wouldn't help here anyway. That would be for just updating the version of something that's bundled in Jenkins to begin with. To use a Jenkins module, you have to have a little step to create a custom R file. It's not hard, but it means you need to produce a special distribution. Yeah, with custom word packages, it becomes pretty easy. So just to show maybe not that new example, but yeah, what you can do, that you can just define the patches in custom word packages in location and it will add libraries, which will automatically become available in the class pass. Here I just replace remote, but you can add new libraries. And we already have one example of implementation for library-like thing. So what we have in the JEP is... Okay, so we have a QBify, it's an old implementation for fabricate. I tried to invite James to this call, but yeah, it seems he's busy. But yeah, what this thing does, so it's better to just take a look at commits actually. So if I understand correctly, this is an implementation which has been originally created for fabricate. So it's before Jenkins X started, and what they did here, that they just modified Jenkins to directly bundle Kubernetes client. And yeah, they replaced all logic in a pretty similar way like Alex did in his pull request. So there is already a reference implementation, which uses Kubernetes resources as a storage. So we could just decouple all these Kubernetes custom logic to a model and to get one reference implementation. And this is what I tend to edit to this JEP. So I assume there will be two reference implementations. Okay, what is it? Yeah, file-based storage, yeah, sorry, I'm lost a little bit. That's why we have table of contents. Okay, yeah, we have Kubernetes configuration storage implementation. I see it as just a fork of QBify and generalization it as a library. And Alex said he's about working on SQL implementation. So I edited here as a separate reference implementation which we could use. And the rest of the documentation is pretty aligned with the current pull request to Jenkins Core, though there are some compatibility requirements set. So for example, we need a file system XML storage, which is obviously legacy mode. And we also need some logic to ensure that people can migrate the instance, even if we do not provide common data immigration flow, at least in the current design. So yeah, three implementations, two for external storage, one for internal. And this is what I would like to see to merge these changes into the Jenkins Core. Does it look right to you or would you expect something else? I mean, I think in practice, most of the difficulty is not going to be just replacing, for example, the behavior of XML file, but testing all of the different corner cases about things that are not actually intended to be configuration or are written at the wrong times and things like that. That's going to be a lot of testing of particular scenarios and basically classifying all of the files in Jenkins home and trying to figure out what they're for.  Right. So yeah, this is probably the biggest problem of this defined design, because configuration storage EPA, effectively it presumes that we update logic for XML file and probably for other storage types, TBD. And this XML file is being used everywhere. So it's built XML, it's configured XML, it's whatever descriptor XML files being created. But generally, there are lots of use cases where plugin developers adjust cache data in XMLs on the disk and they use this thing as well. The advantage is that if we implement file storage in a way that it can decide on its own, whether the file should be persisted or not, that probably we could not care about this for now. And as an added value, you get an opportunity to offload any files. So for example, Kubernetes configuration storage could probably offload all XMLs, even built XML, why not? But yeah, for SQL configurations storage, we could offload only the configuration files, which we could track down because there is an extension point called saveable listener. So we can understand which files are saveable or not. Yeah, probably we can. So that files are saveable or not necessarily purely or at all configuration, they can be other kinds of runtimes. There are also, I think, some things that are saved that do not currently trigger saveable listener. Yeah, right. When I was experimenting with some bits, actually, I discovered that saveable doesn't really behave as you would expect because saveable listener gets involved in many cases, not when you actually say, not only when you save the file. So I was experimenting with some multi-tenant Jenkins setups and I hit that. So yeah, but whatever we do, we can introduce as many market interfaces as we wish. So it's also a subject for feedback. And if you want to just comment in the mailing list so that I reflect this comment in the design. So far, I just presumed that we provide XML file storage and extension point, not an extension point, but just obstruction layer. And then these implementations decide what to save on their own. So this is the current plan. Okay, so any other comments? Yeah, I will watch the recording and notes here. Alex, a question for you. Is the current information not for you to take over this activity for now and maybe to experiment with this public request? So just to see whether it matches your vision and to see whether it can be implemented? I think so, yeah. It looks pretty extensive. And if I can think of anything else, I'll bring it up in the Gitter Chat. Okay. If anything needed, just let me know and I'll try to process this full request. If you want, feel free to just push it on your own due to sponsors as well. So you are more than welcome to join this activity because you proposed the original public request anyway, and here I reflect many stuff from your original proposal. Yeah, so if you need to make some edits in the JEP, etc., feel free to do that. Okay. Any questions about this topic? If no, I propose to move on to the next topic on the agenda. It's about external build logging. So yeah, last week we had an update and the video recording is there. So we have presented the work, the design. Jesse has presented a demo of CloudWatch and Fluent Day implementation. I also demoed some core API changes. So there was an action item for everybody to take a look at the designs and to provide feedback. Maybe we could briefly update the status and then, yeah, we can discuss any comments regarding the implementation. So, Jesse, would you like to start? Sure. I can just give a brief overview of where things stand. So JEP 2.0.6 was sort of a preliminary change to pipeline logging. It doesn't touch freestyle or anything like that, specific to pipeline, which switches all of the log storage to use UTF-8 universally. All pipeline log storage? All pipeline log storage. Yeah, both for pipeline steps and the overall log is always stored in UTF-8 regardless of the platform. And then the main tricky parts there are dealing with shell steps and the like that run processes on particular agents that may use other encodings. So if you're running a or if you're running a batch step on a Windows server, it might be using code page 12.52 or whatever it is. So after JEP 2.0.6, any output gets transcoded to UTF-8 as needed. So all of that stuff has been merged and released. So I hope it's working. I guess the JEP actually needs to be switched to accepted or finalized or something like that since it's out there. Who's the JEP's Delegate Sam? I am not sure that was ever actually set. I know I was asking Chris K to try to pick a Delegate. I don't remember if the Delegate is set for it. At this point, it's sort of moved because it's merged. Yeah, so we definitely delegate TBD. So maybe it's something to lame to check. There will be a JEP status update. It was in cup tomorrow. So maybe we could take a look at this JEP and see what we can do to get it landed. It's actually, that was going to be today if anyone had any topics, but so far I haven't heard any things from folks. So I will, and Oleg will not, Koski will not be there. Well, you can add that. Yeah, you can add that topic to the office hours, I guess. So I tried to grant the right permissions to this document to every SIP member. So you could try. I'm not sure what it does because I'm a favorite to find Carlos in my address book. Okay. Yeah, Delegate and other JEPs. So just you also work on a JEP 210, right? Yeah, so JEP 210 that uses the treats 2 or 6 as a prerequisite. JEP 210 is basically a complete overhaul of how logs are actually, how build logs are actually managed for pipeline. So we'll go into the details of the historical decisions, but if you go into the specification, basically it covers four kinds of changes that build on one another. And the first change here, the invert control of durable tasks pooling. So that is prepared as a set of independently releaseable pull requests, which are undergoing tests right now. And basically, basically the purpose of that is to make sure that if you're running a shell step on an agent that any kind of cloud native build log storage that gets implemented is able to stream that log output directly from the agent without involving the master for every, you know, to handle every single line. So in other words, for allowing an implementation of logging to bypass the remoting channel between master and agent and have the cut out the middleman and just have all of the log text sent straight off to some other source. And then the other three phases are done as another set of pull requests that's undergoing review. And that basically in total allows or adds an extension point that allows the log sync for pipeline builds to be swapped out by a plugin. So we have a reference implementation that assumes that outgoing log messages are being streamed to Fluent D. And then you have to configure Fluent D to mirror all of those messages on to CloudWatch logs. And then if and when somebody browsers the build logs via Jenkins, then it uses CloudWatch logs API is to retrieve the content later. And I gave a, I guess it was last meeting I gave a demo of that running. Yes, it was the last meeting. Yeah, maybe the link needs to be updated because now we have another baseline. Yes, no, it's, it's in the Jenkins CI work now. Yeah. So probably I should also summarize my activities. So I'm working on a job towards seven and 12. So job towards seven is an ongoing patch to the Jenkins core. It's introducing API's for external logging directly in the Jenkins core. So as I said, the idea is to make storage reporters pluggable. So they do not go through so that logs don't go through the master, et cetera. JC does it on the pipeline level. And I'm doing it on the Jenkins core level. So we split to two pull requests and to two jabs external build log and support just minimal set of API changes needed to support that in the core for any job type. So it's freestyle jobs, which we mostly target and, of course, matrix jobs and all other types accepting pipeline. So there are significant changes in the implementations since the last meeting. So as we were discussing, there was a question whether we need a single abstraction layer class in the core or multiple ones. So finally, I implemented the thing. So now it has only one class, log storage. So there is no log in committed and log browsers in a separate way anymore. Then there will be also some changes in implementation to simplify that. And yeah, currently there is an updated pull request to the Jenkins core. After simplification, it became a bit bigger because I've also had some test automation and other stuff. But generally, APIs became more simple. I've got some another feedback iteration from JC, which I need to address. But yeah, generally, it's going forward. So I hope we get it landed towards the next LCS baseline. It's my plan. And regarding the downstream change, we have another job, which is 212. So it's external login PPI. It actually implements core APIs and also implements reach methods so that it transparent integrates with changes being implemented by JC in a job to 10. So here I have an external login PPI plugin and there is also a pending change. I also have outdated link. And there is a pending change, which will align it with core patches. So currently, all patches are passing for the tests. And logging works correctly. For my implementation, I have elastic search reference implementation. So now it shows logs. There are some glitches there, which I want to address. But before I will do that, my plan is to generalize some APIs, because we need to Json submission handling between implementations. And also, we need an implementation for eventual consensus and storage, so that we don't need to implement the engine multiple times. So these are the things which block me from alpha radius state of this external login PPI, as well as core patches release. But yeah, I'm pretty confident that I will be able to deliver them soon. So this is the current state for patches in the core. We still have an open question how we integrate JAP-07 and JAP-210 between each other, because there is some overlap in APIs. But yeah, I think that we don't need to integrate them in the initial implementation. And then we can do it in the follow-up. At least it's my understanding of the current approach. Yeah, so I wish we could get all these JAPs over the fence. So assuming that 206 is going to be accepted. So we have three JAPs. So this one is under review. And I guess there will be no major changes there, right? And yeah, these ones, yeah, they are also in flux, but yeah, I hope that JAPs themselves include all documentation required. So yeah, this is the current status. So I guess no cool demos today. There is still a lot of work to do, but yeah, we are moving forwards in all implementations. Any questions? I guess no. So should we move on to the next topic? Or does anybody want to spend more time discussing external logging? Okay, let's move on. So last meeting, Jeff Pierce proposed several bits to discuss. So he added several stories. Unfortunately, Jeff Pierce is not on the call. But what I would propose to do is to just to understand whether it would be in the scope of this EEC, or it wouldn't be another EEC. So maybe Carlos, would you be interested to review that so that we adjust the scope of this EEC and maybe clarify it a bit? So the first one, I'm interested in easy deployment via Kubernetes to AWS and support for Canaries. Yeah, for me, it's hard to comment whether it should be Jenkins Evergreen or Jenkins 6 or just Cloud Native. The deployment to a Kubernetes and AWS, yes, but that is part of what we are working on. So we have one abstract item here, replication. Canaries of Jenkins, yeah. Yeah, Canary upgrades, zero downtime. So yeah, this guy definitely regarding the rest of the topics, honestly, I have some doubts. So for support for Mac agents, I think that it's actually platform sick. So we have another special interest group which has been also created a while ago and we had a meeting yesterday. So this group focusing on all kinds of platforms, including JVM support, operating systems, architectures. So I guess Mac falls in here easily. So if there are specific topics for Mac support or whatever, I think it's rather goes to there. Unless it's something like Mac stadium or whatever is being used in the cloud. Okay, and this one, what would it be? Yeah, my proposal would be to ask pipeline team whether they want to create their own SIG. Yeah, because for me, it looks a bit weird that pipeline is one of the most active projects now, but yeah, there is no sub-project, no special interest group. So maybe it would be a way to go there because it doesn't look like a cloud native SIG to me. Or maybe just developer, at least. Yeah, I would imagine pipeline sort of touches so broad a section of Jenkins at this point that having a SIG for it might be a bit like inviting everyone and everyone to be part of it. Like, do you want to be part of Jenkins? Well, you're doing pipeline. Yeah, developer might be preferable. Yeah, that's all I think. Yeah, maybe when Jeff comes back, he will communicate it to him. So I guess it should address questions from Jeff. If you want to discuss something, we still have 10 minutes left, so just drop your items to the agenda and we will discuss them afterwards. And yeah, just to complete the agenda, what about regular meetings? Is this slot comfortable for everybody or should we consider another one? It feels that we have enough content for big weekly meetings at least. I'm still trying to get used to 7am and earlier meetings, but I think I'm not sure if I'm alone on that one. Yeah, in configuration as called plugin, we have meetings at 7am, maybe you see? Yeah, midnight. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so yeah, this is a problem of all distributed communities. Actually, if I can comment, I was I was thinking if we have weekly meetings for cloud native SIG and we find a time slot that works both for Europe and states or other people shift and have the same time slot, but other every second week or configuration is called. Yeah, if we find a time slot to be just suitable for the entire planet, yeah, probably it's a noble price. Make the money off of that. We'll just establish that it'll be worth millions. Yeah, right. Usually we do such meetings that's something like 9pm VTC because in such case probably Europeans are still around and people from Asian and Pacific. Yeah, they probably can wake up by this time, but it's a bulk assumption as well. So what we could do, I could create a doodle so that we discuss the regular time slot. Oh, okay. I'm not a native speaker, sorry. Native speakers do worse, I'm afraid. Yeah, exactly. When you say bi-weekly half the time, are you twice a week? Okay, every two weeks. Yeah, exactly. So what I propose, I create a doodle? I won't. I'm fine with this slide. I'm just I'm just I'm just winging. All right, let me winch. Yeah, right. Oh, yeah, I will create it. Regarding the next meetings, any topics to discuss, by the way? So one thing that we will definitely have a meeting on September 17th in San Francisco. So yeah, since many people go there to Jenkins world, we could spend some time and have a face-to-face meeting of the SIG. It's something work and progress. But yeah, maybe you want to meet before. So today is 16th. What about a meeting around August 30th? Well, if it's afternoon, I have to run five cases. So I would prefer to be at the meeting, but I will create a doodle anyway. So I cannot guarantee what will be the final date. It's just approximately August 30th. So we will definitely have something to discuss for external login again, maybe for log storage, maybe for some other stories. Then Jesse and Carlos, we're working on an artifact manager. So maybe it would be interesting if we could present something in the SIG. What do you think? Have we not presented artifact manager already? I guess not. Was it recorded? So regarding that, what we could do, we could have Jenkins online meetup and just present it to everyone. It would be one approach. But yeah, I do not recall that it has been presented in any way in the Jenkins community. Obviously, there were a lot of presentations in between us, but yeah, I do not recall any public presentations. So would it make sense to do that? Or maybe not? Sure, anyone's interested. So what we could do is to just do it in a job. Yeah, we can do jobs, but you have to schedule. You generally want to schedule those two weeks out. So now would be the time to schedule it, I guess. Okay. Yeah, then I will take it offline with Carlos, Jesse, and maybe we schedule something. Right. Do you want to, I guess will it be, will artifact manager be far enough long at that point to do a job for it? Yes. Already released. Okay. So it's staged. Why have I thought about that? Because yeah, we have it in the cloud native SIG scope. Sure. Or maybe it would make sense to spend some time on that. It would be also interesting to talk about credentials actually, because yeah, there were at least two questions in the cloud native SIG room over the last month supported. But yeah, I will talk to people, maybe we could get it done. So if I get something like that, then we could do artifact manager and credentials storage in a single job. Yeah, that could be interesting. So then I will start to doodle. Then according to doodle, we schedule this meeting. And yeah, then we will try to have something more less regular. So any other topics? I have a question about configuration storage. If we sell configuration into Kbass, do we need storage in local file system or we don't need it? So the idea of external configuration storage and actually of all portable storage stories that when we implement them, we move configs outside. So it means that there will be no configurations on the disk anymore. Because otherwise you could just use plugins like a same sync configuration, which actually also push configuration externally. But yeah, they still rely on the disk. So they don't address external storage problem in general. And the idea here is that all configurations are moved outside. Obviously it causes some issues. I just second time I think now. Yeah, so in the JEP there is a backward compatibility section. And this backward compatibility section explicitly says that for new storage implementations, some things may be incompatible because the implementation will change. So some things on the list is disk usage plugin, job configuration, history, same sync configuration, also backup plugins, especially Google Cloud backup. So these plugins may be incompatible with the new storage implementation. It's TBD because all APIs will be compatible. But yeah, I'm not completely sure that we will be able to retain compatibility there in the same way. So for example, job configuration history, how it would work now, it will be still receiving saveable listener notification, then it will be retrieving XML file. So in order to retrieve XML file, it will be using the compatibility layer here. So yeah, there will be a beta file method, which actually presents a configuration file on the disk, even if it's externalized. So maybe config history will be working, but it will be definitely non-efficient. So yeah, these plugins may just break. Does it answer your question? Yeah, so what we require that for existing legacy storage, we retain full compatibility. So effectively, nothing changes in all use cases, including some not that common use cases. For example, there are plugins which make both the assumption about location of built XML or config XML on the disk, which is similar to what we hit with artifact storage. So yeah, these plugins may be affected by a file system-based storage. Nothing changes so that it means that any upgrading instance will behave as before. But yeah, for new storage implementations, there is still some research and testing to be done because it's just hard to predict how these plugins will behave with all this stuff. So disk usage plugin, yeah, it will be reporting accurate disk numbers because it will be pulling data and creating the data it needs, which yeah, it sounds completely weird, but it's how it would work in this case. Okay. Cool. Yeah, so any other questions? Okay, it seems there is no other questions. So then thanks everybody for participating in the call and thanks to everybody who was watching this call in YouTube. So this video will be processed and published maybe in 30 minutes. And yeah, if you have questions after the call, just join our GitHub chat or mailing please and ask there. So yeah, that's it. Thank you again and I'm stopping the broadcast.


Gwon men killed 12 persons and injured 5 others in kushe community kuru district of just south local government of patris state on sunday those killed a male why those injured were four females and the male the injured are currently receiving treatment at an undisclosed hospital the district head of kuru da patrik man dong set the killers invader the community and moved from house to house shooting at the people meanwhile chong begas representing pdp just south just east federal constituency condemn the killing describing it as sad and unfortunate hello hope you enjoyed the news please do subscribe to our youtube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates