Now it's the boring thing that no one likes to talk about, which is testing, but we all have to do somehow, right? So last LSFMM, we had talks about things that would be wishy-washy, that we should do and work on. Folks discussed the possibility of maybe sharing a repository to post results for testing, FS test, block test, that sort of stuff. That's happened. We have a shared get-tree, we have shared responsibilities in terms of being adults. We agreed that we would be civil, and I think so far it seems to be working. Every now and then we do have commits from folks who break shit, and basically we have to revert stuff, but it just takes like a day to notice and then someone would complain. There's a Discord server, woo yay, I know some people hate that, but whatever. There's also oftc.irc.net, so Derek, I know Discord didn't work for you, so I'll be on IRC, if folks want to just jump on IRC, we can use that too. So just go to kidapps on IRC.oftc, that whatever you know. But let's see what else. There is also the concept of not only storing failures, but also storing actual resorts, given that it seems like I'm in the ship. So the other thing was storing full results. The reason is that you can actually use complex advances and tools and that sort of stuff to scrape results and provide fancy results. Forget the name of that stuff that was being evaluated by our team, but the request that I got was that they not not only want the failures, but actually they want the successes as well. I didn't do the math for that, I only did the math ballpark back and napkin type of calculations if we started archiving only the failures. So right now kidapps actually produces the full tarball that you can get commit and basically only has the failures. I thought that that would be sufficient, but apparently people want the successes as well. We can try to recalculate to see whether or not that makes sense to put it into a good archive. If not, maybe we'd just stuff it into another repository. So right now it does have failures, DMS logs, that sort of stuff. Right now I think it's only been me and Chandan who has posted results from our testing. I encourage other folks who are using it to basically just create your own name space for that. There's examples there, just your username, your whatever you want to call it is that your environment is. So I have like for instance, McGruff slash like Libbird or whatever. It's useful because then you can always get grep for things, right? These are compressed tarballs, you know? So you just gotta implement the tooling to obviously the decompressed memory and then just grep for whatever it is that you want. We also now have support for compiling the kernel, FSTES, oh sorry, the kernel on the host using 9p. We actually found some bugs with 9p, but that's because we had enabled initially caching. Right now we don't use any caching at all. Another option is us to just switch to NFS, so I'm not sure if that's, there's any benefits or whatever, but 9p seems to be working with caching disabled at this point in time. So just to be clear, this is basically allowing you to compile the kernel on a big system and then just installing it on the guest. Derek for instance had a question to me. He assumed that it seems like we were running things requiring only the kernel to be built without modules. That's not the case, modules are supported. In fact, module signing is supported too, to ensure integrity, given that we're doing all these crazy testing so that we can ensure that the modules are fine. How is this used today? Well, we had a talk earlier today about how Amir and Chandon are helping with stable backports. So it's an example where KDevOps is being used in two fronts, local virtualization solutions and also on the cloud. In fact Chandon actually ended up implementing support for OCI, so it's a new cloud provider, right? So we didn't have support for that. And how this is being supported is basically just using Terraform.  So for example, I spoke a little earlier about cloud support for Alibaba. It was not clear whether or not there was a Terraform module I Googled in, it seems to exist. So we can support Alibaba pretty easily. It's pretty simple to add support to new cloud providers, just basically variables. I was asked earlier today if I was gonna do a demo, but the answer is no, and the reason is that I wanted this to be more about the things that we should be talking about here. And I had offered to give a demo, record that, put it on YouTube, whatever, and then just go see that. If folks still need demos about specific things, I'm happy to provide that. There's YouTube recordings of that. There's YouTube recordings also about day-to-day implementation.  I use it for my day-to-day. I use it for all my implementations basically is using KDevOps either on the cloud or on my bare-metal system somewhere. I just, as I say it somewhere, and I basically just instantiate and just hack there. But obviously you can use it for your own testing. We have Vert.io now support, given that we had some issues with NVMe on Kimi. So just to be clear, this is basically Kimi instantiating the NVMe drives and this is why I do know about the IO thread stuff that was going on. So we've been kind of trying to see what the issues were and IO threads certainly helped on Vert.io. So for those that are not familiar, essentially Kimi works with this huge global lock and using IO threads allows each storage instance for instance to not share that global lock. So if you're using Vert.io, it's really, really fast. So I know Amir, it helped him a lot to avoid all these odd ball NVMe timeouts that are happening. If you layer that on top of butterfaster, something like that and use loop packs, you're always gonna end up with timeouts. So I started running into this as well, given that I'm also testing XFS for large block sizes. So I'm using Vert.io too, unfortunately. So yeah, whatever. I do know that eventually we're gonna have support for IO threads for NVMe too. So hopefully we can switch back to that. There's initial RM64 support for the cloud.  They're not really large block devices.  They're basically using atomic rights. Everyone does it differently, you know. Some vendors are using NVMe. Some of them are using other storage fronts. But if you wanna evaluate, for instance, what Amazon did, you know, you can go and spin up instances right now with K-Dobbs and use the atomic right support to a right support. But my understanding was that there are no local virtualization images available other in Tumbleweed and it's unclear if other folks are gonna work on that. So what I wanted to talk about really and dedicate some time here was to help with infrastructure for testing and resources. So to make it simple, I think it helps to reduce or limit the scope of what we wanna test and talk about how to test. The non-controversial thing I think that we can talk about is to use the maintainers file to describe components and respective maintainers. And then get respective maintainers to decide what it is that they should be getting help with testing. Then once we have that, we basically need resources, right? And then parties interested to help. So I just wanna remind folks, I keep showing the slide. I think every time I go anywhere and talk about the stuff because we are really good at implementing code. We're not so great at testing. So this is that boring part about testing, right? And this is about trying to address the other components that we suck at. So let's talk about the system resources. So these are the resources needed. We need actual systems for automation and then we need folks to do the work. So for system resources, Samsung has been really nice and has allowed me to share the system that they provided to me to do development to basically share with the community and allow community developers who are interested in trying to test these sorts of things that you just log in and basically we use the system.  So I basically sometimes poke them here and say, hey, I'm sorry, man, can I like turn these instances off and so forth. I go back to Samsung and say, hey, do we have more resources? Can we get another server? And like, ah, how about you talk to other vendors to see what they can do? So I have started to talk to vendors. In this particular case, I've been starting to talk to cloud providers to see what they can do. So, Derek, would you like to say anything about OCI? Are you on the line? Yeah, hello, can you hear me? Yes, perfectly. Cool. Yeah, so as you all know, I work for Oracle. Suddenly now we're a cloud vendor, which is hopefully convenient because OCI has a, has both a free tier and an always free tier. So now that Chandan, who also works for us, has done a whole bunch of work to enable KDevOps to talk to the OCI control plane, this means that you can use KDevOps with reOCI accounts and in order to get testing done and we provide the hardware and Louise provides the software. And anybody can sign up for an account. Please feel free to use your, either your real accounts or fake throw away ones, Gmail, whatever. For me, as an OCI user? As my own personal opinion, not as an Oracle employee, but so yeah, we have resources and we are perfectly fine with letting community members sign up for free accounts and use them to the maximum extent possible. Anybody want to volunteer to write some documentation on how to use Oracle? It's undocumented in the KDevOps reads right now. So I can certainly help with that. Well, all right, I haven't even used OCI so I'll sign up for the account and then I can write the documentation. But I will say that the most difficult thing that I run into in trying to use automation for with cloud providers is the fact that it is actually very, very easy for even their own customers, right? To basically say that, yes, I want automation and then they basically instantiate 100 guests and then they basically have to sell the mortgage, you know, their house or something like that because they can't afford to pay the cloud provider because they left all these instances running. This happens in the industry, right?  I can say that at least for Amazon, it's a YAML file that you can have and you just need to get the information somehow. I do have the documentation on that so we can work on the documentation for OCI if such doesn't exist yet, I'm not sure if it does. So yes, I can certainly help with that. I did also talk to Microsoft about Azure to see what likely could be done. So first of all, thank you so much Derek for asking, it's incredibly useful and now I can at least go back and say, yes, we have other vendors helping. So Microsoft said that they would evaluate this. I have no other news other than that at this point in time unless there's anyone here who does have new information. Okay. I don't have anything about Azure but I will say that they've been trying to get us to use OCI internally for a long, long time and I resisted because I grew up in the 90s and have a whole bunch of pet lap machines.   I don't have to go deal with capital expenditure, blah, blah, blah accounting, it just is there and I can use it. And it worked great until a few days ago when I apparently have now managed to consume all the department's resources and they're telling me I need to back off a little bit. So we may run into that, we may be, you know. So I did figure, I'd ask other cloud providers too. I did ask Alibaba. So at least I got a reply and they're also in the evaluation phase of considering this request. So I have no news other than that, but what can I say? I'm trying and also I wanna thank Jeff for applying to Microsoft Azure program, right? Because, you know, then at least we're on the radar. It's not like, okay, no. If you don't ask, you don't get it, right? It's a good opportunity to also ask if there are any vendors here or who can likely consider and evaluate talking internally to folks, it'd be useful to get feedback. For instance, I know S390s exist on the cloud today. Do you guys know that? How cool would it be to try to get instances for S390? Bad ass, I think. Anyway, if you guys have input, please ask internally for resources. Anything that we can get. I like to think about this, I will say this. It is very boring to think about Linux when you think about it as, you know, common property and, you know, utility. But that's kind of like what we're doing in a way. So I guess we should be able to run KDevOps and do tests with, well, kernels. Let's put it like that on that. You can do RHEL, you can do SUSE, you can do open SUSE, yeah. This came from SUSE, by the way. So that, I guess we can. What we cannot allow is to have anyone, not an employee, logging into these machines. So these machines are intended purpose will be offline to this effect.  It'd be really hard to try to implicate, you know, the describe what your job is and then send it off somehow and hope that you get the results. How do we trust that? I don't know. But for now I think we need the resources and we need to log in. Well, I guess, I mean, if you do testing, I mean, what we do internally already is we're doing testing, building a kernel from a Git tree and then do testing on that. And then we have the commit ID, the top most commit ID reference in the build log saying right, commit ID XYZ, that happened. And that gives you quite a good level of confidence because well, either you have that Git ID and you can track that Git commit ID or you can't. Then well, these results are nice but possibly pointless. But if these results would tie to an upstream Git commit ID, well, guess what happened?  I think at this point, any type of help would be great. So if we have documentation about like how to move forward with this, it'd be awesome, right? So one of the key things I think they have come through dialogue with other folks who have been considering it, you know, or testing right now or adding workflows is, it's important to be vendor neutral. We don't want to depend on one entity, right? Because there's layoffs that can happen. We can just jump between companies and so forth. So we need the resources to do this regardless of what company we go to, right? So it'd be useful. The more resources we have, the more company agnostic this is the better. So yeah, sure. If there are ways for us to test with like Git commits and point to Git tree, absolutely fantastic. Yeah, I was gonna suggest that one of the things that might be a little bit easier for some companies to say yes to would be if it was a, you know, a particular Git tree and a branch. And they just simply watch that particular branch on that particular Git tree when it changes, they run tests and then the test results are sent somewhere. That becomes I think a little bit easier to manage because we don't have random non-employees logging into a particular resource and we could add throttling so we will test no more than end different pushes to the branch a day or something like that. I imagine that that kind of approach, we might be able to get some companies to say yes without necessarily saying we need to give shell access to random community developers, which I think is hard. So I guess one of the difficulties there would just be that we do want the maintainers to be the ones to define what should be tested. So once we get the description of what needs to be tested, yeah, well, it could be, you know, or in the KDovs world, it could be Kconfig for KDovs. Configure it this way, this is what I want. Yeah, I mean. That's fine. So speaking as a maintainer, the thing that I would love to be able to ask people to do and I can even ship them test appliances so it's really easy is on their local machine, run a KVM smoke test using XFS tests. Takes 15 minutes on a home KVM machine. You don't necessarily even need major cloud resources for that, right? It's just run the smoke test and that will find like 95% of the obvious problems. Cause that's what I very often end up doing is, you know, someone sends me a patch, I fire off the smoke test and then I send back a, I'm guessing you didn't test this because it blew up, right? And that actually is one of those things that we might be able to do that doesn't even require allowed of cloud resources is self-testing using developers own resources for smoke testing, right? So back to what Luis said at the beginning, it's not clear to many people what the steps or how to do exactly what you just mentioned. And so the maintainer file could have a pointer to a simple script or something for people to run against their own patch. Yeah, what I would suggest is a URL, right? And that URL can point at these are the steps that you should do before you submit a patch that will allow you to do quick and easy testing, right? And that might lead to download the shell script.  But we can actually make that be very general, just a URL and for that will allow people who are interested in that subsystem to know how to do a quick test. Because I think it really is important to do the, you know, big, expansive tests that take, you know, six days of continuous running on a dozen different VMs. That's the sort of thing that Derek and I might do. But then there's also the quick test that we want developers to run before they send me a patch. And that just simply scales so much better because there are a lot of developers and like one or two maintainers. I agree that KVMXFS tests is as easy as it gets. But if it's so easy to download and run it and it takes so little resources and there are not so many drive-by developers, it's probably easy for Google to have this CI push to the branch and we will test it for you. I mean, which is easier. It would be kind of nice if we had a way, at least for some trees, not for all of them, a way to run this automatically. It is run on the Linux next. Oh, yeah, yeah. For example. But Linux next implies that the patches were applied already, so. Because I think I said this last year when I run NextFS tests, I still have this manual mode. I haven't yet. Dude, I gave a specific live demo for you. It's recorded on YouTube. Yeah, I'm not sure what else to do. You need to shame me into doing it.   Shit, man, whiskey. I don't know. My God. I promise you, next time we see each other, I will have switched to KDA. Okay, no worries, man. It's fine, man. I don't know what else to do. All right. Jeff, how did you find out about the breakage of C-time? Didn't you get an email from a bot? It happens. The bots do the tests already. So this goes into the... But they're not testing everything, right? They're testing EXT-4, they're testing XFS. They're not testing NFS. They're not testing SIFs. You know, we need a broader coverage of file system testing. That was a fantastic point because I was looking at, we fixed the NextFS tests and we found a C-time bug in one of the servers. So like in, I'm sure in EXT-4, you have four or five configurations. I have five or six servers I'll try against. Well, we found a C-time bug. Would this have been found in Linux Next? Probably would have been found years ago. But, you know, it's like, it's a server problem, but still, we have to be running these on as many file systems as easy. You know, don't create new work, but any file system maintainer like Ted or whatever that has the list of, I have a list of tests, you have a list of tests. This is so easy to set up. So I will say, and add to that, one of the things that I hear that's a bit difficult is I'm not sure what to do to get some certain workflows going. I am available for consulting for these things. I'm not saying I get paid for this. I'm saying I'm willing to just give you time and dedicate time to talk to you and help you and review. Well, it would be like if you wanted to automate your workflow using KDevOps. I had implemented demo workflows to add some more support for KDevOps so that way people can see what it looks like. CXL supported is there. Now you can do initial testing with CXL. That's a complex environment. It used to take people quite a bit of time to ramp up with CXL. It should be like that now. What's next? You know, PCI Pass Through. PCI Pass Through is automated. Thanks for, Joseph, for adding initial support there and now you have KConfig for it. If you don't know how to do something, I'm happy to provide some time to talk about this. But other than this, we need people to actually do the testing. We need volunteers as it became very clear earlier from the LTS talk. We need volunteers to help with kernel maintainers in this room who do want help because they need the help. It's extremely useful for learning as it was described and you get insights to new features in technology. So if you would like to help, talk to any of the file system maintainers, they all need help, right? Just poke. If you have any interest, poke at them. The alternative, of course, is that we can pull money resources together. I say this just because at one of the LSF MMS, it was hinted, money's not the problem. We can pull money.  Well, I think we have enough work already cut out. We did some of the work. Can we, do we really have resources to putting out money? Layoffs happen. I'm not sure if that's still the case. So it's not a good economic time to consider that again even though it was said before. So the only thing that we do have is volunteers. However, if really pulling money is something that folks really are serious about, because it was hinted before that money shouldn't be an issue, well, should we just pay folks to do and help with this stuff because this is common utility type of work? I don't know. But in the meantime, we just need volunteers. So the more volunteers we have to help with some of this work, the better. Obviously, you know, kernel developers need to become familiar with how it is that, you know, this workflow would work. And then they can give the blessings and help get people to help. In the meantime, question is, do we want to pull money or do we want to just focus on volunteers? What would kernel maintainers prefer? I mean, I think trying to find, you know, is there a lot of benefit in hiring people to just push buttons, right? I don't really see it. So, I mean, we're better off trying to just automate as much as this as we can. And that way, you know, if we can have the computers do the work for us, right, as much as we can. Yeah, I mean, I think if we had the money, the place that I would put it would be funding work to enhance something like kernel CI so that we would have a common dashboard for test results, right? XFS tests uses XML, you know, XUnit, XML files as test results. It would be not that hard to have some submission of sending test results into some centralized location so that you can actually, you know, get an easy dashboard of tests that have failed and, you know, the test artifacts that might help someone to track down a flaky test because I think one of the benefits that you would get out of that, and we're actually seeing that with the Sysbot dashboard, is we've got people who will look at the Sysbot dashboard, find a Sysbot report and they work the problem, right? And then, you know, the next thing I know if someone has sent me a patch and they say, it fixes this problem, you know, if you are, you know, uploading XFS tests and you'll have some weird file system config that, you know, has a failure and somebody else can actually work that test failure, then it's not just the person who's running the test who has to, you know, track down and root cause all the test failures, there can be other people in the community that could do that work. But that requires some sort of common dashboard. I think many of us have our own custom dashboards.  They're not something that's really very scalable for the rest of the world. I have access to a really, really excellent dashboard. Unfortunately, it only works inside the corporate firewall so I can't share that. But that's the sort of thing where if we had money instead of actually, you know, paying someone to push buttons, as you put it, that's sort of, that's a missing piece of the infrastructure that I don't think I've seen a good open source flexible solution for just yet. So I did look into that workflow and realize on a series of complexities. I mean, sure, your support for that can be added into Kdevops, you know, it's just a Kconfig, you know. So sure, if someone is interested, that support can be added for sure. But it requires just working with the whole lava stuff, which I was just like, no way, I'm not touching that. But, you know, that's what I mean. And I think that's the sort of thing that really you want it on a public website, right? And so I think kernel CI is actually a better fit than, you know, saying, oh, I'll add a visualization dashboard to Kdevops because then each person running Kdevops has to find a way of poking a hole in the firewall to export the web server, right? Whereas if the model is people have their own test runners, you know, because Kent has his own test runner, you know, I have my own test runner, Kdevops has their own test runners. And the point of commonality is the Xunit XML file and maybe some standardized format for the test artifacts. We need to be able to send that to some common public website that then displays it for everyone, right? I think that's just, I think that's the right model.  It's just that at the moment, all of the funding went into testing ARM, boot up, and device tree, right? And, you know, someone needs to throw more money at kernel CI for other kernel subsystems other than device tree. Well, I guess maybe one of the things could be to see if we can use these cloud resources testing for us and focus on non-ARM stuff, you know? But again, you know, this is lava stuff. I'm not too interested in the lava stuff, but if someone is, that would be useful here, I guess is what I'm hearing. I'm interested if you have any thoughts about what I ran into. When we did test automation, one of the things that happened was XFS test changed. And I think you guys remember it was copy, file, range, error, change. There's tests that break. So you go from, you do a Git pull on XFS test this week and behavior of test 91 just changed. Yeah, so we certainly run into this even amongst all the folks who run in, you know, with GitOps too.  And then, you know, we hope that it doesn't break when we do the Git fetch and reset, but we run into issues. Chanda, you know, reported an issue recently, the latest FSTest, there were some issues with some scripting there for the XML parser. So he reverted tons of stuff now and pushed that. And we hope that that eventually gets fixed. So my best recommendation is that we have to stabilize FSTest as well. The only thing we can do there is just rely on the tags and hope for the best. So like, for instance, this is why I was asking Shinjiro about the tags for block test because that would be very useful too, because then we know, or at least this seems to work, we can stabilize in that for a bit and then move forward. Yeah, so I think the reality is that if you are a file system maintainer that wants to be test driven and really rely on XFS tests, you have to be on the FSTest mailing list and you have to be an active participant because we're constantly adding new tests. Some of the tests are, gee, let's see if this security bug has been fixed. You want that test, right? You don't want to stabilize on a version of XFS tests from six months ago. And sometimes the new tests fail. And sometimes the new tests, like for example, might rely on a specific version of Bash. And if your underlying system has just upgraded to a new version of Bash or Core Utils, the test flake out and I patch the test and I send a patch up to the FSTest list saying, oh, by the way, Debian just went to a new version of Core Utils and it broke this particular test because the test relied on something non-portable, right? It happens. But the reality is the value that I get out of XFS test is such that I'm one of the FSTest community members so that I'm constantly watching the latest FSTests so I see the test regressions independent of the kernel. So that's actually one of the things that I will do right as the merge window is closing is I'll run FSTests on the old version, pull the latest version of FSTests, run it, see if there are any test failures. Okay, there's a test failure. Is it a new test or an old test? If it's a new test, then okay, I might have to root cause that. Is that a test bug or a file system bug? And sometimes it's a test bug, but I get enough value that it's worth it to me to actually spend that time. But I think one of the goals for KDevOps for the simplicity, and this is not, I understand it. So what you did with KDevOps, you took the approach of Xpunch files that are very, very specific to 5.10.107. It doesn't match anything else. You wanna test anything else? You need to create a copy or sim link to 108. That needs to take into account the FSTests tag otherwise everything blows. Every time that I update FSTests, I screw everyone else. So the thing with the very, very specific and Xpunch list is far from being perfect, but at least if you want to meet the goal of simplicity, it needs to be added. Yeah, what I actually started doing is I started running the exclude files through a CP processor, and I just have if death Linux version code greater than whatever or more to the point less than whatever, because sometimes what will happen is an older kernel will always fail a particular test. And I just simply put that in the exclude file as a pound if because I didn't want to maintain a dozen different exclude files for a dozen different kernel versions. And it may be that KDevOps should consider doing something similar. Your prep services can also look at fixed by annotations in the test and put them automatically inside Xpunch list. I would like to share something we have down in the past year with BPF, my list patches. We hook something to patchworks. I think a lot of maintainers use patchworks and whenever there's something show up in patchworks, there are things in the background that trigger some tests that would use the GitHub tests. And then there's the link from the patchworks. You can see there, oh, there's the test failures. And you can even see the whole thing like all the pending patches. If they're ready, ready, ready, you know something wrong with the test framework.  So I think that and we haven't even have a ways if you go to GitHub, you can test your patch before submitting your patch. So, so far, we think that works pretty well in terms of the framework side. And of course that's neat maintenance, like especially with BPF, we are sensitive to LLVM version, there's certain version gonna break things. And I think the other key is like, we need the maintainer, the developer to see there. We need that to be green like in the regular time. If there's all red, like, because the regular contributor doesn't know like, oh, did I break that one or it's actually broken things like two months ago. But so far, I think that framework worked, I will see it worked great for us. It's spent, we need the effort, but I think that patchwork is probably the easiest interface and GitHub so far worked great for us. We do have patchwork integration, surprisingly. So we show up on patchwork, it's just unused, but I have a to-do item on my list and looking into this because I think it might just be useful just for tracking. Serious that I've been reviewed, serious that I'm still outstanding. And it might kind of like that feature that you have this sort of, even it's just symbolic delegate mechanism where you can say, okay, this needs to be reviewed by beyond or by Amia, for example. Yeah, and this might be another thing. I don't know if the best place to put it is in the maintainers file or the subsystem profile in the documentation that Jonathan mentioned, but many of us have patchwork instances. They're not all patchwork at kernel.org. I happen to use one that's at Oz Labs. And so just simply telling people this is the patchwork that you should be looking at would actually probably be a good idea. And again, I'm agnostic as to whether the maintainers file or the subsystem profile is the right place to put that. I guess more people look at maintainers, but I don't know that that's the right place. So something to think about. Yeah, the biggest advantage that I see is that you have a way of keeping track of what is actually still around because currently it's like the inbox and thanks to Constantine, I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly, lay. Or that's the only way to currently keep track. Patchwork would be way better for this, I think. You know, from my perspective, when I compare with other open source projects, the number one problem is we don't have enough tests. You may be at 800 or 799, but we should be at 2,000. We've got so many bugs that we fix and not enough tests. So what I was looking at in this, like what would cause people to be so impressed with your infrastructure that when they reported the bug to Ted or to Jeff or whatever, they also sent a test case that we can then add because that seems like the number is, does this make it easy? Does it help in any way getting the visibility of how important tests are at us? Because we're not gonna know about all these bugs, right, the customers will. And so will that help with that? The answer is yes, but because, not because, you know, KDEVS doesn't have tests itself. It has workflow definitions to allow you to use existing repositories that are used by the community for testing. So for instance, a fast test is a workflow. Block test is another one. Each workflow has its own, you know, dedicated series of tests. So it's important to, you know, separate that. This is just the automation aspects about using existing infrastructure for testing. We have kernel self-tests, no shoes here. So self-test is also supported within KDEVS too. So if you're a maintainer for the kernel and are using self-test and you wanna do automation with self-test, you can do that with KDEVS too. So it's important to increase the number of testing that you do have for your different workflow. This will help you with the automation and getting people new contributors to also easily adopt those required workflows for your testing infrastructure. A complex environment, for instance, that we had, you know, recently been heavily involved in is CXL. One of the biggest complaints that I got was it's really complex to deploy and instantiate a CXL test environment. Well, no, not anymore. It's just a few commands. Yeah. So I think in answer to your question, Steve, the in general writing a test case is difficult because you want the test case to be something which is small, self-contained, and easy to reproduce. And most often the type of bug reports I get are of the form, run this proprietary workload or run this open source workload that takes several hours to set up and then run it for six hours on this class of hardware and then maybe the bug shows up. And so generally what tends to happen is we work with the bug reporter, we root cause it, and then I come up with a reliable repro which is like, you know, ideally 10 lines of shell script and that's what actually goes into XFS tests. So if you are lucky enough that you get a bug reporter who can send you a easy repro that is just half a dozen lines of C or whatnot, they've done 90% of the hard work of fixing that particular bug. And I wish more users would send me those types of bug reports, right? But the reality is that's not what we get. So I think the challenge is the, there is a certain amount of discipline involved. And sometimes what maintainers can do is send back a thank you that was a great patch. Would you like to write a test case for me? Because very often the test, the commit might actually even include the six line reproducer in the commit description. And then it's just simply a question of sending back to the patch submitter. Would you like to take that reproducer turn it into an XFS test because that actually helps everyone? And that's, I think, again, part of the, we need to push that back on the patch submitters because while, I think today, the vast majority of the tests are written by the maintainers and the senior developers of the file system and that just doesn't scale, right? We need, and there may be things we can do to make it easier to write XFS tests, right? And maybe we need to have some tutorials about, so you want to write your first XFS tests, this is what you should do, right? And it's actually not that hard. We just have to write the documentation. Well, that's all I had. So if you had resources in terms of systems that you'd like to contribute, now you know at least you have kernel developers who seem to be willing to help with some of these test infrastructure and add the automation stuff. You guys need help with seeing how it is that what it would look like. I'm not gonna write the code. I'm gonna help you evaluate what you could do. There's enough demos out there. I've recorded demos of how to use it too. I will create the dialogue to add a new cloud provider support. Yes, I'll easily add support. That's a few lines of code. Adding new profiles for testing file systems. That's just the key config change to kid ops. So that's all. So one very quick thing. You had to talk about stable earlier and I mentioned this to you earlier. I think this actually has even more benefit. Maintainers are running XFS tests, a lot of them are running them already. But I mean, I don't hardly ever run against 5.15 or 5.19. So this is gonna be a grand slam if we add a test 7.99, we find it breaks 5.15. We didn't backport a fixed to 5.15 that we need. The stable is gonna be huge if we can find a way. Is that within scope as well, testing any scabels? Any kernel can easily be added to kid ops. It's just basically a key config change and a kernel configuration to ensure that it compiles. After that, then all you have to do is run a test test to get your baseline. The complexity lies in establishing baseline first and that takes a bit of time. So you first need to establish that. And that basically unfortunately just means, you know, running the test and see what fails and documenting that and having a list of expunges and be used as the baseline.  You know, it's just how FS test works. We have tons of tests and tons of tests fail for one reason or another. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Maybe it's test bugs, sometimes it's real crashes. These are known issues that will create your baseline.  And yes, we can strive to automate that, but there's enough tooling to at least get us one step further right now, which is to get us a quick test environment. The baseline process takes a while. Getting to automate that, we can get there. There's just some work needed there too. Yeah, I mean, we've talked about this last year. There are ways that you can validate tests without necessarily creating the baseline first.  At that point, we go back and test the baseline and see whether or not that test has a similar test failure percentage and if it did, then we know the patch wasn't responsible for making things worse. And if not, then we know we have a problem, but that way we're not actually spending a huge amount of time establishing a baseline for the common case, which is most tests actually pass. So there are actually other alternatives. I know that's not the workflow that KDevOps is currently using, but I think there are some, you know, smarter ways of doing that. And I think one of the reasons why I mentioned that is if we're going to be using cloud resources, finding ways of using cloud resources efficiently is actually really, really important, right? And so, you know, if you have systems that will automatically shut down the VM when you're done with the test and fire up the VM just when you're starting the test, that's a lot more efficient than keeping the VM up all the time.  If the node is idle for more than a certain amount of time, it automatically shuts down the VM, which, you know, makes good sense, right? So actually one of the big things that I've actually done was to make sure that if the kernel hangs because it's spinning in a deadlock, that I have timeout systems that will automatically kill the VM because, you know, having the VM run for 24 hours, spinning in a dead loop, not making any progress, it burns money, right? And so that may be the other thing that's worth thinking a little bit about is how can we do more efficient testing in a cloud environment because, you know, resources are not free. So certainly feature-welcomed patches are greatly welcomed as well. Any other questions? Back in the, was there a question? No, no questions. One question, Chichiro. We should have those things where you can throw the mic. Those are fun, right? Right. Thank you very much for the good discussions. I think many of the discussions mainly passed for XFS tests, but most of the discussions are applicable for block tests, I think, so. So block tests are rather small test sets, so I'm not sure if the really tag helps you or not. So if I do a tag, so you need to follow it, but if you just use a git hash, so anytime the KDEbox user can choose which version to use. So is it okay for you just to use that tip of the block test master? Yeah, right now I just get close to the latest and greatest, but we can certainly just pick a git, you know, commit IDs and the same thing as the brand. So yeah, we can certainly do that as well. Is there any difference to do the tagging? I'm sorry? Do the tagging and then picking up just the tip. So what could be the difference between those two? Well, tagging just dates it and, you know, we should at least, for instance, one of the nice things would be having some sort of blessings on your part on a specific git commit, like you would, I don't know, maybe, for instance, run a series of tests on a kernel or something and make sure that there's no like bash grip breakage or something like that, you know?  As I see. Yeah, so not only for KDebops, so if any of the block test users wish to have the tags, I'm willing to do that, so if any comments you have, please let me know. Yeah, that's all. Great, well, thank you.


Wel, mae'r tofi TV er is dda'r matri ac sy'n Manchester United one ever one ar Old Trafford oedd. Y gweithio'r blws, dessamatedd by injuries a illness before the game, Duncan Ferguson had to pick a scratch side almost for the trip to Old Trafford. Manchester United in excellent form at the home, cobala great wins against Spares and of course in the Manchester Derby last week, meaning that it was a more difficult prospect than probably a few weeks ago. But United still have only lost one home game I think this season, so still a tough place to go and get a result. Obviously the injuries, the illness, no shigats in, snydd on out injured, wall cut injured. The manager had to make four changes to the bill. And in came Seamus Coleman, we had Tom Davis and Mason Holgate centre of the field. Bernard came back into the side as well, yet he mean of returning from injury. And it looked like a five at the back on paper, but the way it shaped up it was 4-4-2. And I thought Mason Holgate was fantastic middle of the park, I really did. Done a great job considering he played centre back in the Premier League. Him and Tom Davis very inexperienced duo in the middle of the park. Davis not obviously plays a lot, but Holgate playing that role, but I thought he was brilliant. Manchester United started really quickly with a chance early on. I think it was Rashf. Oh no, Lingard screwed the shot wide after 15 seconds or something. But then Evan had a couple of goals themselves, Mason Holgate forcing a decent stop from the Hayek with an over the cross and then tested them again with another shot early on. And we found our feet in the game, United at the first 15-20 minutes, I thought he moved the ball really well. And Evan done well just getting into shape and making it difficult for them. Jordan Pickford made a really good shape, my Rashf free kick. But Evan got into the game and started looking more threatening on the counter. I'm going to call it that they haven't had a brilliant game, you know, as a target man and really taking the fight here in United. And we got in front, got a corner, ball whipped in by Leighton Baines. Looked, you know, there could have been a foul given. It hit Lindelof and goes in very similar to the goal we can see against Sheffield United, the goodest nearly in the season. Same thing, whip ball in near post goalkeeper. Pressure on the goalkeeper shall we say. And a hit, yet he mean it that day and went in and Sheffield United went on to win the game, unfortunately we didn't today. But we got ahead through that. You know, Dominic Ardallu had a long range shot with the highest save. And got in at the break, you know, doing all right. We'd lost Luca Dean as well, you know, he'd, you know, he'd obviously declared himself February only lasted about 20 minutes when Dan Alden is growing. So I guess that's him done for a couple of weeks. So we went off Baines, come on, I thought Baines did really well against James, who's lightning really is so fast a kid. But thought Baines had a really good game against him to be honest. Come over the second half United got on a front foot again, applied a bit more pressure. But didn't really, you know, you didn't really create lot of clear cut chances. He had lots of shots, he was shooting for him everywhere. But he did get that wave of pressure going on. And you knew that, you know, it was going to be difficult for Everton to keep a clean sheet because they were, you know, they were putting us under that kind of pressure.  Manchester United equalised Mason Green and come on for them, scored a good goal. I mean, seeing it first, I thought Pickford should have got there. Maybe he could have done better. Come through yet he mean his legs, it was in the corner. It was nice, you know, we hit it well looking. 20 minutes left 1-1, you know, and Moise Keane was then subbed. In about the 85th minute, yw mae ni ash, come on.  And now it was Moise Keane who'd only been on the pitch about 17, 18 minutes. And he didn't look happy at all, you know, obviously he wouldn't. And he went straight down and told Duncan didn't even look at him. So I can only think that he wasn't doing what Everton had asked him to do, what Duncan had asked him to do, what the coaching staff and... Ni ash, come on. And just made a nuisance of himself for the last five minutes or so. And we had a late-in-bains, three-kick late-on, which hit over the bar. Probably, you know, Alex O'Wobee forced a good save out of the hay, United had a couple of attempts themselves. And we ended up with a 1-1 draw, you know, and an excellent point there to consider how many players. I mean, we had five central midfield players injured today, missing from a trip to Old Trafford, you know? And these were games, two games. Duncan Ferguson's had the games that people said we wouldn't get a single point from. We took four from six.  To get that team up today, fighting the Old Trafford with a makeshift team, Sheamus Coleman, I thought of the good guy. To be honest, everybody worked the socks off, and that's all you can ask, I think. Yeah, a couple of moments, we could have had a bit more quality of Alex O'Wobee could have clipped that ball through to Dominic Calvert, losing at 1-0, who knows. But, you know, but we did ride our luck a little bit as well at the other end, so you can't go on through much about that. It's just to say, we're an extra point, a difficult away game. They're the only team that Liverpool haven't beaten this season, remember, so a decent away point, and we go on now, and hopefully we can get some of the walking room. I mean, I imagine that Guilfee Sigarton and Gabriel Shidaby should be available for Wednesday against Leicester. They missed the game through illness today, so fingers crossed there, back in the squad to give it that little bit of a stronger feel to it. I don't want to see Cucamati in a warm-up again, that's the sense she has now, but it ended 1-1, decent point for the Blues, and we move forward. Give the video a thumbs up, subscribe if you're having checkout-peds, instant matter, and if you want more videos, join us on Patreon. See you later.


Thank you, our next item of business is topical questions. We start with number one from Alex Cole-Hamilton. To ask the Scottish Government what its responses to claims that staff at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital are incredibly stressed and that the hospital is very short staffed. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. I want to pay tribute to the unstinting professionalism and dedication exhibited by the staff at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow, as seen in last night's BBC documentary. All NHS boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, have a statutory responsibility to carry out and actively monitor workforce planning. That ensures that high-quality services continue to be delivered safely while boards remain responsive to the needs of staff, at least through effective partnerships with their professional and union representatives. Under the Government, the number of staff in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is up 3.7 per cent to 34,385 whole-time equivalent, with consultants up 38.4 per cent and qualified nurses and midwives up by 5.5 per cent. Although the number of doctors and nurses is up, I recognise that there is increasing demand on services, which, of course, has an impact on staff. That is why it is so important for health boards to continuously improve their workforce planning, and this Government is providing them with the tools to do so. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and absolutely share her sentiment about the staff. Watching the BBC documentary last night, the dedication of those staff absolutely shone through. You couldn't fail to be impressed by their expertise and the care that they provide, and the facilities are evidently first-class. However, the Royal College of Nurses has said that the pressure that staff are under because there are too few of them makes it, in their words, really hard to deliver care. It added that there is real strain on services. So can the cabinet secretary tell the staff and patients at the Queen Elizabeth when they will see a material improvement and what plans there are to increase the number of staff at that hospital specifically? Of course, I did see the RCN's comments. We engage very closely with the RCN at a national level, and we would expect Greater Glasgow and Clyde to engage with the RCN at a local level as well. In terms of making sure that there are appropriate staffing levels, they are reviewed at the hospital's daily safety huddle, where staff are absence or post or vacant. Additional staff are sought, and it is very important that that happens. The board has also assured me that the whole regular meeting with the staff-side partners to ensure that any concerns raised with them are addressed. We, as I said in my initial answer, have seen an increase in staff across the NHS in Scotland, including qualified nurses and midwives up in Greater Glasgow and Clyde by 5.5 per cent. We are going further in terms of the workforce planning tools, which are very, very good indeed and, in fact, have been replicated elsewhere by other health systems, but we want to go further than that. That is why we have committed to enshrining safe staffing in law, placing the nursing and midwifery workforce planning tools on a statutory footing. The member might be aware that a consultation on the legislative proposals was launched on 12 April, and it is going to run to 5 July in order to make sure that we gather the views of staff, including those that are represented by the RCN. Alex Cole-Hamilton It is not just the Queen Elizabeth that is under pressure. The Edinburgh royal infirmary serves thousands of my constituents. The Scotsman reports today that a memo from 2ERI staff sent last week described it as being in extremis. It stated that 36 patients waited up to 17 hours in A&E for admission to a bed, and it stated that the potential safety implications for patients, their families and scheduled surgery are serious. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how often such warnings and requests to repatriate patients to other health boards occur? What I can say to the member is that, occasionally, particular A&E departments will experience a surge in demand. That will occasionally happen for a variety of reasons. At the RIE, the issue was a post-easter surge in demand with high levels of attendances on Thursday 20 April. What they then do is what any emergency department will do. They ask for beds to be released as quickly as possible, because it is for the whole hospital to address any issues in A&E departments, not just for the staff working in A&E to manage that themselves. There is nothing unusual about taking a whole hospital approach. What I can say to the member is that NHS Lothian's performance returned to normal within a few hours of that surge, and performance against the four-hour target at the RIE in the preceding day was 96.7 per cent. The performance of that hospital in a steady state has been a very good one, but it experienced the surge in demand. That was managed appropriately and it returned to a steady state very quickly after that. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport mentioned and replied to Alex Cole-Hamilton's workforce planning. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support nurse and midwifery workforce planning? Workforce planning tools in Scotland are very good indeed. I had a visit recently to Forth Valley hospital, where I saw the deployment of the workforce planning tools. Of course, in that hospital, not dissimilar to the Queen Elizabeth hospital, you had a number of sites coming into one site and some of the challenges associated with that. The good thing about the workforce planning tools, which, as I say, have been recognised elsewhere, is that it is not just about the numbers of patients and the numbers of staff. It is also about the acuity of illness of those patients and being able to adjust the tool in order to bring staff in, additional staff in, if required, because of a heightened level of acuity of illness. As I said in my initial answer, and I can say to Sandra White, we want to go further than that. Our proposals to enshrine safe staffing and law have been widely welcomed by the RCN and others in putting that on to statutory footing. I would encourage many of you, as possible, to put into the consultation, which runs until 5 July. There will be a number of regional events across Scotland during that consultation period to enable people to give their views. Donald Cameron, cabinet secretary, will be aware of recent comments by GMB Scotland, who stated that, due to staff shortages and extra demands, many hard-working hospital staff are struggling to cope and, sadly, for many of them, they need to take time off to recover. Given the level of vacancies among consultants, nursing and midwifery services, what action will the Government take not only to ensure that those gaps are filled but that existing staff receive the support that is required to carry out their jobs without undue stress? Of course, it is important that staff are supported and that they are given support in the workplace. As I said in my initial answer, we have seen record levels of posts across Scotland. We have seen an increase in consultant posts and in nursing and midwifery posts. Sometimes, though, vacancies are harder to fill, particularly in those specialties that are harder to fill, not just here in Scotland but elsewhere. It is important that boards manage that, ensuring that they do everything possible to fill those vacancies and support staff in the meantime. We are also looking at doing things differently. If you look at the reforms on the east side of Scotland boards working together to address some of the radiology shortages by bringing those staff together in a network to provide support, I think that that shows a very positive and imaginative way forward in order to address shortages in that particular specialty. For almost a year now, the cabinet secretary has been coming to the chamber and saying that she is addressing workforce issues. In that time, vacancies have gone up and private agency spend has gone up, too. The reality is that our NHS staff are overworked, undervalued and under-resourced by the Scottish National Party Government. The result—todd, yet again, the Queen Elizabeth university hospital remains the poorest performing A&E in the whole of Scotland. Is not the truth that this mismanagement is now having a direct impact on our staff, but it is also having a direct impact on our services and patient care, too? Isn't it a shame that Anasawa couldn't find it in himself to welcome the very positive documentary that the BBC showed last night about the hard-working staff within our Queen Elizabeth university hospital? You know what was really interesting if he looks at social media, which I am sure he does, as I did, was how many staff were saying how nice it was to have some positive portrayal of their efforts at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, instead of the eternal talking-down of their efforts that we hear too often emanating from some quarters within the chamber. Anasawa will be well aware of the efforts that are going on within the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Tim Park, the A&E consultant at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital reported that, despite some of the difficulties, the service at the new hospital is better than before and work is going on to make the service improvements even more. I would say to the staff at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital that we absolutely value the efforts of every single one of you and we will work with the board to make the further improvements as we have done over the last year. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a poverty-aligned survey that suggests that 1 in 3 people in Scotland on low-income are struggling to afford food. It is a depressing, absolutely depressing reason that people in a country as rich as Scotland are struggling to afford to feed themselves. Sadly, those figures do not come as a surprise considering the UK Government's failed austerity and continuing barrage of welfare cuts. We continue to do all that we can to support people on low income and to tackle the underlying causes of poverty. Our fairer Scotland action plan sets out 50 concrete actions to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland, backed by £29 million fund for local communities. That is alongside the more than £100 million a year that we spend on welfare mitigation measures and resources that could instead be invested in lifting people out of poverty. Instead, we are having to invest that in offsetting the very worst of Tory welfare cuts. In addition, we believe that access to sufficient nutritious food is a basic human right, which is why our £1 million a year fair food fund supports approaches that help people affected by food poverty in a dignified way. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the Scottish Government's promotion of the poverty alliance accredited living wage, which includes ensuring that it is paid to all NHS staff and adult social care workers, is yet another clear action that has protected Scotland's people from Tory austerity? Can she outline what further plans there are to increase the living wage in Scotland? We have allocated a further £250 million from the NHS to integration authorities to protect and grow our social care services and deliver our shared priorities, including paying the living wage to care workers supporting vulnerable adults. That will give up to 40,000 people, mainly women, doing some of the most valuable work in Scotland—a pay rise. We will also provide up to £50 million of additional revenue to extend payment of the living wage to all childcare staff, delivering the funded element in private and third sector nurseries by the end of this Parliament. We also continue to support the living wage accreditation scheme. As a result, in 2016, Scotland remained the best-performing of all four UK countries, with the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage or more. George Adam. As the right-wing Tory Government and Westminster continues its attack on the poorest in our society, is the cabinet secretary, like me, appalled but, sadly, not surprised that the Trussel Trust research out this morning shows that food bank use is at an all-time high? What advice would she give to the good people of Paisley and all of Scotland who seek to avoid this continued attack and the risk of Tory austerity? Briefly, cabinet secretary. The Tories are turning their back on the poorest people in this country, and, in return, I believe that the people will turn their backs on the Tories. Like many in this chamber, I am appalled but not surprised that there is a 9 per cent increase in those accessing three-day emergency food parcels. According to the Trussel Trust, a quarter of those referrals are driven by low income, and almost half of those referrals are driven by the UK Government benefits regime. The Trussel Trust and the Poverty Alliance are providing strong evidence that there are more and more people in this country going hungry and having to make impossible decisions—a shocking trend that will have to stop. The Trussel Trust and others have shown that the overwhelming majority of people using a food bank do so because of an acute shortage of money rather than because of any more sustained cause. Indeed, the Trussel Trust told me that 80 per cent of Scots using one of their food banks do so only once. Now, I think that there is a real issue— Order, please. Sorry, Mr Tomkins. Please order. We have heard everything else in silence. Please hear Mr Tomkins in silence too, Mr Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that there is a real issue, cabinet secretary, to be debated around the extent to which we want to see food banks becoming more closely allied with our taxpayer-funded welfare system. That is an issue that I have talked about with the minister privately before. However, what steps, if any, has the Scottish Government taken to ensure that people using food banks in Scotland are at least aware of the support from the Scottish welfare fund and other devolved sources that might be available to them? Of course, the real question is why people have low incomes in the first place. That is either because they are in work on poor pay, and that is why this Government is absolutely committed to doing everything that we can promote and support the living wage, unlike the UK Government south of the border, who, of course, have the powers over minimal wage legislation. It is somewhat ironic that, in the face of more and more people in this country going hungry, struggling to feed their kids, Mr Tomkins comes to this chamber and points to the Scottish welfare fund. The Scottish welfare fund assists 241,000 individuals, individuals that have been forced to access the welfare fund as a result of Tory cuts and Tory austerity and draconian welfare cuts.


What's going on guys got Kyle here relating sports cards, and we're ripping two personals for Paul F We have one twenty twenty two stadium club chrome, and we've got one twenty twenty two Allen and Ginzer baseball Start with the Allen and Ginzer. Good luck Paul. Let's see what we got here See some low numbers out of A and G There's a blue Javi Baez to start us off number to 150 tigers Got a lexicon there ducks on the pond Trevor story got a Hamilton That is number two five on the curler Hamilton there That is Matt Hamilton five of five team USA curling. That is interesting one there. Nice red Five of five on the mini. We'll get a mini top loader on this one as well Nice one there Paul on the red Noah Cindergarten got Thor Buster Posey. We've got a baseball lexicon Got Ellis. Hey, let's go Matt No problem there Mandela crew That's Brian de la Cruz on the rookie and Brian de la Cruz on the mini rookie silver Nothing wrong with that Matt. It was entertaining. I remember the last uh, the last winter Olympics I was watching a little bit of curling man. It was entertaining I was all in I probably saw that guy. I don't remember that I did but probably did Inside the park we got Abrams rookie and Murray Eddie Murray There's a B Rio refractor and Julio on the mini refractor Robbie Ray got green Jay Ram Jose Vermeer is there nice one to 99 guardians. It's a nice color out of here already Malika Andrews on the refractor mini and Chang there's blue. It's Brad Beal number to 150. This is uh, like color per pack so far to 150 That's not normal Roger Maris We're on Santo. There is a refractor there of Jameson and Tony Oliva many You Charlie Blackman got a plies there on the another curling JD Martinez Curling is interesting when you actually watch like a full game and like understand what's going on Women's there refractor. I'll say and I lost strategy going on. I remember the last winter Olympics curling was like Yeah, it's a pretty big thing like everybody knew when it was on at least like So sling always has like some of those random channels and like whatever is on and they would have like They would have like qualifiers and stuff Life for the Olympics Like it was on my air, I don't watch it. I was like, oh, this is kind of cool There's a shade beaver Inside the park mini Bacovec You know in my defense there wasn't any other sports Watch some curling qualifying. Why not? There's a mini there of Mackenzie Gore rookie Sandberg Robinson Verlander Ashby. No mini in that pack Piazza got a mini Bob feller and Julio on the base rookie Nick, how hard is it to be the thrower? Like I imagine it's gonna be precise still like the way they spin the It's gonna be something to be difficult to be good at for sure. Yeah, there's a blue Blake Yeah, Blake Grace there to 150 on the blue That is rookie Steven Kwan on the mini Like if you overspend the stone, there's not much anyone could do to correct it I don't think yeah, get that thing going all the pressure's on you there's Malika Andrews refractor and Bob Clemente mini Adrian Beltrae Alrighty Paul that'll do it for the Eleven Ginzer. Let's do some stadium club now. Good luck, sir We should do that. We should do that for employee day. Let's go find a place to go curling I don't know. We're gonna find one around here Maybe uh, maybe uh, the rdb They got a ice rink there. They could at least Figure it out. There we go. Figure it out. Just bring our own curling stones and set it up Yeah, they can't control the direction can they? I feel like that's the way the little brooms. Yeah, that depends like all directions based on like the Yeah, it has to be the pointy thing George Kirby rookie thing is the handle I guess Josh Donaldson refractor the pointy thing That's the term I have the terminology down the pointy thing The big rock in the pointy thing There's a team of the future Shohei team of the now Jeff Bagwell rooms in contraros Can't say team of the future for the best player in baseball There's a beam team raffi And orange nice one here go nulls number to 25. We got buster posie Sick one there on the trophy hunters orange These look great with some color Nice buster there Nice buster Uh select football uh ory That's the one you're talking about I can check. Yeah, give me one second. I can check for you I think it was around uh, 1200 Thomas little star kids aren't easy to hit But congratulations on that man. Good job Yeah, they were they were right at 1200 there ory On the uh divisions get four teams per spot full case Yeah, I got you thomas come on now I got you thomas There's a blue rookie vedal brujan number to 150 there for the race Or 199 sorry 199 in a stadium club. Yeah, that was a sweet one thomas That uh, you got that goal or that green christian Um, watson too, I believe that green to five christian watson There's eight trophy hunters for nando tatis. There is green tommy romero for the race there to 99 rookie cj abrams bryan dale accrues Donnie's boy Yeah, got a wave about one per box on the wave. It is mark maguire nice one there big mac on the wave about one per box That's got my five star auto in a brian. Oh nice It's not numbers. So rookie Yeah, I like five star. Yeah, it's pretty Got 81 sotoe trophy hunters cow ripkin Yeah, I got you thomas. I got you sir Today was a great day of football. Yeah, that was some really nice breaks all around There's a team of the future of lati. I appreciate you grabbing a spot too thomas I always seem to do pretty well There's a beam team vladdy Appreciate you trusting me with some uh, some select there. Got destiny joe adult angels max kepler couple packs left Good luck paul team of the future tatis Let's look at our auto coming It's like it's here auto Got george curby refractor rookie And auto is going to be nick plumber on the rookie auto for the mets Refractor rookie auto nice on-card auto there. That's a nice big auto Very clean Not numbered there on the refractor And last pack paul Beam team uh freboard freeman Hershaw and edgar martinez on the back Alrighty there mr paul that'll do it for your two boxes of uh one box stadium club one box alan and ginter get those right out to you sir. Thank you


Work is often presented as this wonderful thing that is just automatically good, like being hard working. That's a great thing. Working hard is a great thing. Work is wonderful. But it seems like working is only as good as the work itself is. If we're working on doing something very bad, that is also work. It's possible to be very hard working, diligent, industrious, doing very bad things. So it seems like simply being productive, hard working by itself, it's not enough to say that it's good. It has to be the right thing at the right time and done in the right way. So there's no point in just working for work's sake. In fact, being clever and coming up with ways to reduce the amount of work we need to do is a great part of the human tradition, like inventing tools. Somebody felt the need to dig a hole, started to claw with their hands and they could be very hard working, but then somebody must have found a nicely shaped rock and started digging with the rock and then that came easier and then they started building custom made shovels that would have a long handle so you could put more strength into it and be able to dig a hole with much greater ease than to claw with your hands. So it's possible that the person digging with a shovel may be able to dig that hole with a lot less work than the person who is clawing with their hands. Now if you saw somebody clawing with their hands to dig a hole, would you think more about that's a really hard working person or more like that person is missing a useful tool? Now it may be the same in our lives, there's nothing great about digging a hole with your hands if you have a chance to get a shovel. Now it does seem like there is still value in this idea of working hard for its own sake. Digging in the habit of working hard, even if you're doing something useless, it can still help in training to be hard working. So if you spend a week digging a hole with your hands, not that I recommend actually doing that, but it would certainly give some training for very hard effort. So there is in that sense some benefit, even working on useless or bad things. It does help to train the ability to work hard. And then those same skills, that same discipline can be applied to better things. But I think it's worth remembering that it's not so great by itself to simply be hard working. We have to find something that is good to work on and work on it in a good way. And since that isn't always clear, it's not always clear what is the best way forward. Seems like one approach is simply to start working on something that I feel good about. Something I feel good about, put some effort into that even though I don't know if it's the right thing, I don't know if it's the best use of my time and energy, but I will start working on that and then go from there. It feels like a good thing to start working on and over time I'll continue to review it and always adjust, always adjust my work so that I can be working on the best thing possible at the right time in the right way. Because when hard work is applied to a good thing, then it seems like wonderful results can happen.