►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync - 2 March 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Do
you
want
to
run
this
one?
Do
you
want
me
to
do
it
emily.
A
Cool,
so
do
we
have
new
faces.
I
think
we
don't
just
the
usual
suspects
thanks
for
hitting
record
sam.
A
Share
the
right
browser
window
cool
starting
from
top-
I
guess,
add
mechanisms
for
platform.
I
know
this
is
a
draft,
but.
C
I
put
this
in
path
because
there
was
an
ask
last
time
to
make
a
sub
team
rfc,
which
I
did
so
just
direct
everyone
there
for
their
feedback.
A
A
Do
you
have
strong
opinions
here?
Are
you
just
gonna
implement
the
change.
B
D
C
A
For
this
one
are
we
expecting?
I
think
there
was
conversations
to
have
the
combat
stuff
that
sam
suggested-
and
I
was
reading
this
live
discussion.
Is
that
a
change
in
this
pr,
or
are
we
merging
this
pr
independent
of
that.
C
I'm
in
favor
of
including
it
in
the
spec,
but
I
think
we
were
sort
of
hung
up
on.
C
C
E
I
think
I'll
leave
a
comment
there,
but
generally,
if,
if
the
exact
json
blob
we
put
on
the
label,
if
you
preserve
that
we
can
just
put
a
media
type
as
vendor,
there's
a
prefix
for
non-registered
media
types
that
buildbacks
io,
plus
json,
and
that
will
work
I'll.
Leave
that
as
a
suggestion
here.
C
The
other
question
I
had
really
because
this
the
uncertainty
around
this
pr
is
what's
holding
us
back
from
like
cutting
a
life
cycle.
Do
we
wanna?
C
A
That's
a
good
call
out,
are
we
we
don't
have
this
tied
to
a
milestone,
except
in
the
title?
Should
it
be
tied
to
platform
online
here,
probably
yeah.
A
I
mean
I,
I
think
the
current
plan
is
fine
with
me.
I
think
we
should
move
away
from
the
getting
stuff
in
labels
because
that's
a
problem
and
I'm
fine
just
moving
into
a
file,
and
so
we
can
get
sam's
suggestion.
I
would
be
happy
to
get
this
through.
A
And
then
the
last
one
is
practice
rifter
02
do
people
have
feedback
on
either
and
the
spec
stuff
or
even
the
release
notes?
I
was
probably
just
going
to
copy
paste
this
when
we
tell
the
release.
A
I'll
go
haggle
them
after
this
meeting,
I
guess
per
emily's
point
once
I
get
votes
approved.
Can
I
I'm
just
going
to
go
do
stuff
without
circling
back?
I
think
I
would
be
fine
within
these
spec
yards,
where
that's
true
too.
So
if
you
want
to
pay
me
natalie
out
of
band
once
people
approve
and
you
get
changes
through,
I'd
be
happy
to
get
those
things
moving.
So
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
them
again
next
week,
hopefully.
A
Cool
spec
release
planning.
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
so
I
think
platform,
09
and
buildpak
08
are
like
they're
kind
of
tied
together
because
of
the
process
specific
working
directory,
and
I
wanted
to
to
know
if
we
could
sneak
in
I
mean
I
don't
I'm
just
because
we're
kind
of
blocked,
mikey's
now
working
on
the
providing
arguments
to
build
packs
via
environment
variables.
A
A
I
don't
know
I
I'm
fine
with
playing
in
I.
Unless
people
are
gonna
rush
to
get
stuff
out.
C
I
think
it's
it's
probably
likely
to
land
at
the
same
time
as
the
other
stuff
that
we
currently
know
will
be
in
the
next
like
life
cycle.
So
I
think
mike
created
an
issue
for
it,
because
there
wasn't
one
already.
A
A
I
assume
emily
with
her
mic.
Muted
does
not
have
objections,
nor
any
of
the
other.
A
In
the
peanut
gallery
cool
is
there
anything
else
we
want
to
bring
up
for.
C
I
have
two
that
I
would
love
to
get
on
the
agenda
for
working
group
tomorrow.
Okay,
actually,
there's
three
that
I
can
remember
that
we
we
need.
I
would
love
to
talk
about
the
docker
files,
rfc.
C
A
C
And
there's
been
also,
this
is
in
draft
still
I'll
check
with
juan
just
to
make
sure,
but
juan
has
an
rfc
up
for
removing
the
daemon
or
not
removing
the
daemon.
Actually,
as
it's
evolved.
C
It
is
a
dress.
I
should
probably
check
with
juan
that
he
actually
indeed
wants
to
talk
about
it
at
working
group.
That
was
the
other
one
I
was
thinking
of,
and
I
remember
that
we
also
wanted
to
get
stephen's
input
on
the
s
bomb
for
the
run
image,
which
is
number
yeah,
that
one.
A
C
E
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
probably
something
we
need
to
separate
or
schedule
like
schedule,
a
separate
meeting,
for
I
don't
think
we
can
cover
this
in
detail
in
typical
working
group
meetings.
E
A
Yeah,
it's
fine
to
do
it
doodle
whatever,
for
that.
E
To
daemon
removal
and
export.
A
E
I
would
say
it's
there's
still
a
few
open
things
that
I
would
want
to
discuss
and
it
would
be
nice
to
get
like
this
is
a
change
that
will
impact
app
developers.
So
I
would
like,
as
many
people
who
are
interested
in
this
topic
will
be
part,
but
I
don't
want
to
take
up
the
whole
working
group
discussing
this.
This
okay.
E
C
I
was
curious
about
194,
it
says
it's
an
fcp.
A
B
And
pack
to
you
right,
if
you
want
an
interface
for
pack,
ben,
was
gonna,
merge
this
and
basically
got
frustrated
with
the
tooling,
and
I
said
I
would
pick
it
up.
B
The
original
version,
but
the
issue
bought
stuff.
He
said
something
wasn't
working,
but
I
don't
know
what
wasn't
working.
He
told
me,
but
I've
forgotten.
B
I
just
have
a
vague
feeling
that
it
wasn't
working
wondering
if
we
need
to
do
something
different
with
the
issues.
A
Okay,
taking
us
over
from
ben.
D
You
should
probably
make
creating
these
issues,
maybe
a
standing
item
for
our
implementation,
sync,
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
know.
B
I
was
wondering
if
we
could
do
something
like
even
more
lightweight
okay,
so
one
of
the
things
I
like
that
we
do
on
paquetto,
even
though
we
don't,
you
know,
there's
always
a
problem
with
people
not
keeping
things
up
to
date,
but
it's
as
up
to
date
as
the
stuff
we
do,
which
is
that
there's
issues
on
the
rfc
repo
itself
that
basically
just
tracks
the
implementation
of
the
rfc
and
then
from
there
you
can
link
out.
You
can
sort
of
have
like
a
task
list.
That's
like
a
link
of
other
other
issues.
B
D
Yeah
I
like
that
when
I
merged
one
the
other
day,
it
sounds
like
I
had
to
make
sure
all
the
issues
got
created
in
the
relevant
repos
and
the
totally
helps
quite
a
bit
here,
and
so
it's
pretty
good,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
just
be
able
to
not
block
the
rfc
merge
and
instead
have
like
an
issue
like
you
said,
like
a
a
meta
issue.
Basically,
that,
then,
can
be.
We
can
still
use
the
tooling
to
like
push
things
into
there
if
we
want
to
like
queue.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
that'd
be
helpful
for
people
to
instead
like
clicking
through
each
one
to
see
where
they
are.
You
just
have
a
high
level
summary.
I
might
just
do
that
with
this
one.
Like
there's
nothing
about
that.
That's
against
our
process.
I
could
just
link
this
to
an
issue
in
the
rfc
repo
and
then
from
there
link
out
and
then
we'll
see.
If
people
like
it
or
not,
we
can
always
un.
We
can
undo
it
really
easily
if
people
don't
like
it
so.
A
E
A
A
Just
ddos
their
email
account
nice.
I
like
the
way
you
think
I
did
have.
This
came
up
on
the
heroku
side
on
the
lane
stuff
and
I
want
to
bring
it
up.
I
think
emily
and
sam,
maybe
don't
give
you
commenting
on
the
pre-pen
delimiter
stuff.
E
You
can
see
both
sides
of
it.
It's
just
that,
like
if
you're,
if
you're,
pending
to
variables
that
the
life
cycle
itself
said
so
like
package,
config
path,
healthy
library
path.
We
know
what
the
delimiters
for
that
should
be
unless
you're
doing
something
weird
with
those
values
and,
for
example,
you're
you're,
concatenating
parts.
For
some
reason
then
like
using.
E
B
A
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
I
I
think
for
the
particular
use
case,
the
particular
concrete
thing
that,
yes,
that's
true,
but
there's
definitely
like.
If
I'm
adding
a
thing
to
the
path
pre-pending,
I
I
have
to
set
the
delimiter
when
we
know
what
we
want
that
delivered
to
be
as
if
they'll
pack
up
for,
like
common
things
like
say,
I'm
saying
like
things
that
are
already
being
set
by
the
life
cycle,
right,
yeah,
it's
just,
and
so,
if
I
use
prepend,
I
also
now
am
required
to
also
use
to
set
the
delimiter
at
the
same
time.
A
And
so
are
we
doing
that
for
consistency
across
all
the
variables
or
do
we
want
to
for
the
common
stuff
like
not
for
spellback
authors,
who
need
to
prepend
something
to
also
have
to
know
to
set
the
dylan
earth?
I
guess
is
kind
of
the
question
right.
E
B
A
Where
it
isn't
in
bin,
because
that's
what
it
extracts
to
like
you,
either
have
to
sim
link
or
put
it
in
bin
or
you
append
it
to
a
path
right
like
I
feel
like
that's,
not
an
exceptional
use
case
like
like.
I
need
to
manipulate
the
path
right
like
I
need
to
put
tools
or
whatever,
where
they
are,
and
I
either.
B
A
E
E
E
It
I
just
find
it
weird
that
now
we'll
have
to
specify
that,
for
these
specific
environment
variables,
we'll
set
these
delimiters
by
default,
and
then
we'll
also
have
to
also
spec
out
what
happens.
If
you
specify
a
dln
files
for
these
variables,
because
a
lot
of
people
will
be
doing
that
right
now
and
what
happens
if
the
value
in
that
dlm
file
is
not
equal
to
a
colon.
A
A
E
It
probably
differs
on
windows
versus
yeah.
I
mean
there
is
something
that
lifecycle
is
enforcing.
I
agree
it's
just
that
we
don't
do.
We
don't
handle
the
environment
variable
set
using
that
specific
api
in
that
special
case,
I'm
just
saying
that
we'll
have
to
spec
all
of
that
out
and
figure
out
how
we
deal
with
the
edge
cases.
B
I
think
we
should
be
pushing
people
towards
the
layer
bin
api,
like
even
if
I
think,
one
of
the
reasons
is
that
you're
not
putting
things
on
the
path
that
aren't
you're,
not
in
that
layer
setting
something
on
the
path
that
might
not
be
there
right.
It's
like,
if
you
use
the
layer
bin
magic.
You
know
you
only
ever
get
that
entry
on
the
path
when
the
executable
actually
exists,
whereas
if
you're
prepending
or
appending
to
the
path,
you
don't
have
those
same
guarantees,
not
that
I
think
we
should
stop
that
latter
case
from
happening.
B
If
people
really
want
to
do
something
specific,
but
I
feel
like
we
should
be,
we
should
be
encouraging
people
to
do
it.
The
latter
way.
We
should
be
encouraging
them
to
do
it.
The
former
way
so
you're,
avoiding
edge
cases
where
there's.