►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2022-02-09
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
C
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
stephen:
did
you
get
a
chance
to
look
at
the
distribution
spec
one.
A
C
So
I
think
I
resolved
all
her
comments
just
waiting
to
hear
back
from
her,
but
also
want
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to
look
at
it.
B
C
B
Awesome
that
is
wonderful.
Yes,
I
will
absolutely
take
a
look.
It
looks
great
just
looking
over
right
now.
Thank
you
for
awesome,
calling
that
out
that's
really
exciting
any
other
way.
Should
I
share
my
screen
on
the
specs
thing
and
just
let
me
know
if
there's
any
other
things
that
anybody
knows
of
that
need
to
get
pushed
through
here.
A
B
All
right,
then
I'll
just
go
through
the
rfcs.
Two
days
ago,
javier
you
opened
prepare
operation,
oh
yeah.
We
need
that.
Is
that
one?
You
want
to
talk
about
this
week
or
anything
something.
C
Yeah,
we
could
definitely
talk
about
it.
I
think
there's
nothing
pressing.
That
would
push
it
back
into
drop
so
yeah.
I
think
it's
ready
all
right.
A
B
B
202
all
right
utility
build
pack
for
dot
profile.
B
D
So
I
I
I
don't
know
what
we
think
about
this,
because
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
discuss
it
right
now,
but
platforms
have
some
more
metadata
than
the
build
bikes
themselves
so
like
if
the
platform
loaded
the
application
source
code
from
git,
it
will
put
it
in
in
the
project
metadata,
which
is
not
accessible
to
any
build
pack,
and
please
things
map
directly
to
to
like
the
oci
annotations,
like
they
almost
have
a
one-to-one
map
in
in
some
cases.
D
So
I
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
drive
this
through
project
normal
and
the
project
metadata
terminal
or
each
one
build
packs
to
have
the
ability
to
do
that
or
both
right
or
both
yeah.
I
mean
this
first
cut
was
just
take
the
information,
that's
already
there
and
put
it
somewhere
and
then
change
the
api
like.
D
B
B
D
Not
yet
updated
to
add
stations,
I
have
to
do
that,
but
I
I
wasn't
even
sure
whether
this
was
still
blocked
or
not,
I'm
guessing
it
isn't
anymore
and
we
can
like
we'll
be
okay
merging
this
without
the
demon
removal.
D
I
I
just
need
a
yes
or
no,
if
this
like
this
is
something
we'd
be
happy
to
merge
without
the
damon
thing
or
like
do
I
need
to
handle
cases
where
like
do,
I
need
to
expose
some
compatibility
layer
and
pack
that
allows
it
to
add
these
things
later
on,
like
a
pack
publish
or
something
so
we
still
have
the
game,
but
we
introduce
black,
publish
that
stores
all
of
this
somewhere
and
then
pushes
it
out
and.
D
B
C
Cool
yeah
for
what
it's
worth
I've
already
talked
to
her
about.
You
know
other
things
that
we
shouldn't
block
based
on
the
demon
stuff.
So
I
think
hopefully
this
falls
in
that
same
kind
of
line
where
it
wouldn't
be
blocked
by
that,
but
it
does
kind
of
bring
up
the
question
of
how
does
this
work
within
pac?
If,
if
we
end
up
going
with
a
registry,
only
option
right
if
the
platform's
responsible
for
it.
B
I
definitely
lean
towards.
We
should
support
cosine
soon.
I've
gotten,
like
the
only
I
wrote,
a
little
bit
of
code
that
helps.
You
extract
the
other
s
bomb
from
an
existing
image,
but
nobody
really
knows
it's
there,
and
so
people
don't
realize
that
you
can
pull
the
s-bomb
from
an
image
without
pulling
the
whole
image
right
now
right
and
so
like.
B
I
think
this
would
help
a
lot,
so
I'm
like
definitely
supportive
of
a
way
we
can
add
cosine
to
the
project.
I
also
agree:
we
should
remove
the
damage,
but
it
seems
like
maybe
that's
a
conversation.
We
can
pull
a
million
to
and
figure
it
out.
B
We
decided
or
emily,
and
I
agreed
that
we're
okay
with
them
overlapping,
as
long
as
just
using
the
same
environment,
variable
names
in
both
contexts,
but
committing
in
the
rfc
to
as
part
of
the
other
rfc
that
refactors
the
platform
api
to
making
them
non-conflicting
and
then
we'll
conflict
for
a
api
release
because
they
would
anyways,
I
think,
and
then
they'll
be
non-conflicting
until
we
get
the
other
rfc
through.
So
that
should
be.
That
should
resolve
that.
A
Oh,
I
may
not
need
to
update
it
if
we're
okay
with
conflicting
but
I'll.
The
way
I'll
update.
B
The
one
thing
is:
yeah
put
something
in
the
rfc
that
says
we
are
going
this
way.
A
B
Yeah
cool
and
do
we
need
to
talk
about
tomorrow,
no
cool
support
for
pac,
tumble.
A
C
Yeah
cause,
I
know
that
there
were
some
individuals
that
brought
up
some
concerns
as
to
why
we
would
support
multiple
files,
what
would
be
supported
and
what
and
how
they
would
overlay,
and
so
I
want
to
kind
of
keep
those
discussions
separate
from
the
thing
and
yeah,
and
I
thought,
since
we
have
this,
we
could
kind
of
bring
that
conversation
here.
A
C
Yeah,
so
the
there's,
basically
a
pack
would
have
a
custom
preparer
right,
so
the
other
rfc
right
right,
the
idea
of
upper
being
in
the
flow
right
and
then
this
rfc
would
be
about
pack
leveraging
that
other
rfc
to
do
the
things
that
it
needs
to
for
that
pack.
Tumble.
A
All
right
cool
yeah:
we
don't
need
to
talk
about
it,
yet
I
think
it
needs
some
attention.
First,.
B
Sounds
good
187
images
table.
C
B
A
They've
asked
to
work
on
this
async,
which
I
understand.
I
guess
that's
a
good
point
like
we
don't
need
to
bring
it
up
and
working
group,
but
we
should
like,
I
feel,
like
we
should
be
able
to
do
this
async
and
support
this
request
sounds.
D
I
think
I
spoke
with
natalie
around
some
of
my
existing
comments.
I
don't
know
actually,
if
you
had
a
chance
to
speak
with
anthony
on
that
from
from
my
last
officer's
discussion,.
C
D
A
B
This
has
changed
since
I've
last
reviewed
it.
I
think
so
I'll
re-request
a
review
on
myself
and
then
we'll
bring
it
up
tomorrow
without
any
questions.
C
Yeah,
that's
I
think,
being
over.
What
is
it
called
preceded
by
the
other
one,
the
one
that
I'm
working
on.
B
Got
it
additional
exportable
layers,
sam.
D
B
D
I
mean
it
just
depends
on
priorities.
If
we
have
a,
I
would
rather
have
first
discuss
like
the
cosine
stuff
and
all
the
other
things
stuff
before
this.
If
it,
if
we
have
time
we
can
discuss
this.
B
A
I
made
a
bunch
of
suggestions
based
on
the
conversation
that
happened
two
weeks
ago
in
office
hours.
I
think
there's
still
jesse
brought
up
a
question
around
docker
files
that
are
extending.
B
Awesome
so
there
is
there
there's
work
to
be
done
here,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
something
we
should
talk
about.
It's
just.
I
need
to
look
through
these
things
and
hit
the
commit
buttons
and
then
then
see
if
there
are
any
questions
cool
and
then
make
build
layers.
Last
but
not
least,
make
build
layers
read
only
for
subsequent
build
packs.
B
Cool
and
going
back
to
the
agenda,
the
ones
we
selected
were
yeah.
They
don't
have
names
on
them.
B
And
the
low
priority
1
81
exportable
layers.
How
do
we
want
to
allocate
time.
A
D
B
Sounds
good,
did
you
say
you
want
a
cosine
here
because
I
didn't.
B
C
Yeah,
I
could
give
a
quick
run
through
on
that.
I
don't
expect
too
much
time.
B
B
Click
once
or
twice
it's
at
the
end,
do
we
do
we
still
allocate
minutes
to
these.
B
B
C
The
pr282,
I
left
a
couple
comments
for
project
descriptor
o2.
I
don't
know
what
the
status
for
that
is,
but
I'm
assuming
we'd
want
that
out
soon.
C
Cool,
so
I
don't
know
what
the
process
for
this
is,
but
I
think
we
wanted
to
do
this
pr
to
kind
of
review
everything
like
I
said.
I
left
some
comments.
I
don't
know
if
there's
an
owner
for
doing
the
release,
if
that's
terence
and
if
we're
just
waiting
for
him.
A
B
C
It's
not
that
we
missed
it,
it's
that
we
implemented
it.
While
we
were
writing
the
spec.