►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync
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
B
I
just
noticed
the
question
about
documenting
in
the
build
pack
api:
how
to.
C
Because
isn't
that
where
all
the
media
types
are
so
I
I
didn't
know,
I
don't.
I
know
sam
had
the
like
the
media
types
in
addition
to
the
location,
but
we
don't
put
any
immediate
types
and
platform
api.
As
far
as
I
know,
right.
A
C
B
The
place
pack
api
is
where,
like
the
build
pack
needs
to
declare
which
media
types
it
supports
right,
but
for
this
legacy
stuff,
the
life
cycle
is
not
actually
checking
those
media
types,
because
it's
it's
doing
legacy
stuff
for
older,
build
packs
right
that
didn't
really
even
know
anything
about
media
types.
A
B
Those
are
newer,
build
packs
right,
so,
if
you
think
about
older,
build
packs
that
are
totally
ignorant
of
all
this
s-bomb
work
that
we've
done
we're
trying
to
handle
their
bombs
and
put
them
in
a
format
that
the
platform
can
consume.
But
we
don't
want
to
make
a
new
requirement
on
older,
build
packs.
C
C
In
that
world,
from
what
you
just
said
mentally
is
that
is
that
a
crazy
question.
B
So
I
think
that,
like
uploading,
an
s-bomb
as
an
attestation
or
attachment
is
something
that's
like
not
specked
within
our
project.
So
sam
is
just
kind
of
saying
if
you
have
this
workflow
for
your
other
s-bombs
and
you
want
to
keep
the
same.
Workflow
like
this
is
how
you
could
do
it
in
a
way,
that's
compliant
with
other
other
specs
that
I
don't
know
anything
about.
C
Okay,
am
I
the
only
my
balloon
hold
out
here.
A
C
I'm
just
trying
to
be
thorough,
more
than
am
against
it
or
not,
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
we're
following
through
on
stuff.
I
did
want
it
documented,
so
that
was
kind
of
the
the
having
that
part
document.
The
platform
thing
was
what
I
wanted.
A
That's
fair,
you
know,
get
to
decide
which
hills
to
die
on,
but
I
think
we've
reached
a
good
compromise
and
I
just
saw
your
check
so
I'm
gonna
click
merge
if
everyone's
okay
with
that.
A
A
This
is
the
one
I
was
trying
to
heckle
stephen
into
voting.
If
you
can
vote
for
joe,
I
don't
know
well,
we
could
merge
this
without
stephen.
I
don't
know
what
you're
voting
for
joe
formula.
It
looks
like,
though,.
C
I
can't
is
there
surrogate
voting,
I
basically
pinged
him
on
google
hangouts
and
was
just
like.
I
know
you're
on
pto
this
week.
Did
you
have
anything
you
wanted
change
in
the
process
of
working
directory
stuff
because
they're,
pretty
small
spec
changes
right
like.
C
C
A
I
was
in
the
process
of
reviewing
this.
There
is,
I
think
this
is
going
to
touch
on
something
bigger
like
we
started
when
we
are
adding
deprecations
adding
these
versions.
I
think
you
kicked
this
off
terence
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
these
versions
are.
Referring
to.
A
C
A
B
C
C
It's
only
a
retroactive
intention,
I
guess
in
some
ways
it's
in
maybe
ben
has
inputs
from
being
in
other
open
source
projects
and
how
folks
do
this
isn't
some
of
the
things
I've
seen
it's
just
like
it
was.
It
is
nice
to
see
kind
of
the
track
record
of
when
and
how
things
change,
but
I
guess
your
point.
It's
not
change
like.
A
C
Yeah
I
mean
I
don't
feel
strongly
enough
of
keeping
the
version,
but
I
guess
we
also
aren't
tracking
that
elsewhere.
So
I'm
happy
if
we
want
to
move
that
somewhere
else.
A
A
And
the
other
thing
like,
I
think
we
should
talk
about
now,
just
to
give
people
gonna
have
strong
opinions
that
I'm
gonna
leave
in
a
comment
is
four
features
that
are
deprecated
like
the
positional
arms.
I
don't
wanna
see
them
up
in
the
top
of
the
document.
I
think
they
should
only
be
in
the
deprecations.
A
All
right,
I
don't
think,
there's
something
else
to
do
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
out
of
the
way
that
I
was
going
to
leave
those
comments.
So
we
could
talk
about
it
now,
but
it's
going
to
be
controversial.
A
All
right,
that
is
it
for
spec
pr's,
spec,
release,
planning.
B
Can
I
make
one
comment
on
the
spec
front,
I
had
a
pr
that
I
put
in
draft
about
the
image
creation
time
it's
still
still
in
draft,
because
the
rfc
is
moving
its
way
through
votes.
But
there
is
a
question
about
the
name
of
the
environment
variable
that
we
want,
and
I'm
just
asking
because
I
have.
I
have
some
approvals
but
no
votes
on
what
the
environment
variable
should
be,
and
I
just
just
want
to
call
that
out.
If
you
have
a,
if
you
have
a
preference,
please
vote.
A
But
everyone
click
through
and
vote,
please
if
you
have
a
preference,
if
you
have
a
preference
and
you
don't
vote
and
then
you
come
into
the
last
minute,
try
to
block
it
from
being
merged.
We
will
let
you
but
we'll
complain
about
it.
A
D
C
Yeah
I
tagged
in
release,
notes
and
everything.
Apparently
we
don't
do
tags
and
release
notes
for
any
extension
stuff,
but
I
did
it
anyways
or
I
think
we
tag,
but
we
don't
do
release
notes.
I
don't
know
I
did
not
see
anything
except
buildpack,
api
and
platform
api
in
the
list
of
things
when
I
was
scrolling
away
through
the
beginning
on.
D
D
E
C
A
A
Each
and
every
person,
speaking
of
which,
actually
you
know
we
approved
years
ago,
that
we're
going
to
deprecate
the
bindings
thing
here,
but
we've
not
done
that.
I'm
curious
what
the
process
of
deprecating
a
whole
spec
looks
like
to
everybody.
Do
we
just
replace
this
with
a
big
note
and
a
link
over
to
the
new
spec?
A
A
C
And
then
click
through,
I
I
feel
like
you,
can
cut
a
new
version
of
bindings.
Like
point
two,
it's
only
on
point
one
right.
If
I
recall,
if
one
we
had
release
notes,
but
I
I
think
we
could
release
like
the
v-necks
of
this.
That
is
just
like
what
emily
said,
but
I.
D
A
A
A
C
C
C
E
I
did
some
like
I
I
I
like
this
simply
because
it
keeps
me
a
bit
comfortable
like
even
if
it's
just
one
or
two
minutes
or
whatever
they
can.
If
until
we
have
a
better
way,
I
would
prefer
keeping
if
you're
removing
it.
I
would
like
a
good
replacement
for
getting
people
to
vote
on
things
or
follow
up
on.
F
I
feel
the
exact
opposite
I
feel
like
if
it
was
important
enough.
Someone
would
be
poking
us
to
push
it
through
and
this
lets
things
sit
there
and
then
eventually
we
can
just
mass
close
them
if
no
one
ever
comes
back
to
push
on
rfcs
that
haven't
been
touched
in
a
while,
like
everyone
should
have
someone
who's
pushing
these
rfcs
forward
and
if
that's
not
happening
it's,
how
important
is
it
really
yeah.
E
F
E
E
C
A
Support
dockerfiles,
it
looks
like
this
actually
has
most
of
the
votes,
I'm
realizing.
I
haven't
re-reviewed
in
a
while.
Are
these
votes
like?
F
It
almost
has
to
be
the
latter,
because
there's
so
many
things
that
are
on
that
are
just
not
done
yet
to
figure
out
exactly
how
we're
gonna
interact
with
some
of
the
pieces.
C
Okay,
sd
signing:
do
you
want
to
make
that
call
natalie
yeah.
A
A
Yeah,
I
don't
think
we've
made
the
changes
in
this
document
that
would
reflect
the
consensus
that
we
thought
we
had
reached,
which
is
why
it's
hard
to
just
outvote
him,
as
is
I
think,
natalie,
had
claimed
responsibility
for
taking
over
this
rfc.
B
Yeah,
I
can
update
it,
I
think,
was
pondering
the
discussion
from
last
time
and
steven's
objections,
but
I
think.
A
Okay
images
table
project,
tumble.
E
C
Yeah,
well,
I
think
we
did
say
we
want
to
do
this
independent
of
javier's
massive
prime
descriptor
thing.
C
I
I
don't
know
what
the
status
is,
what
the
original
author,
but
I
know
there
were
comments
and
things
on
that,
so
I
guess
as
a
we
should
probably
ask
if
we
want
to
try
to
move
this
thing
forward,
or
I
guess
close
it
kind
of
thing
since
there
haven't
been
updates.
C
C
If
you
swallow
it
to
the
bottom,
I
think
that
was
the
last
time
we
talked
about
it,
and
I
wrote
this
from
work.
The
core
team
sync
last
time
of
how
we
want
to
basically
serialize
some
of
the
image
references
and
then
get
them
updated.
A
That's
the
status
moving
on
support
for
pactomel
this.
B
A
A
Yeah,
like
I
sometimes
go
to
review
them,
and
then
I
open
it
up
and
I'm
like,
I
don't
even
know,
what's
going
on
with
project
home
well
and
I
just
closed
it.
E
Oh,
I
think
yeah
this
we
can
potentially
like
just
do
without
that
larger
conversation,
because
it
isn't,
as
involved
as
the
daemon
removal.
It's
not
hurting
anyone
I
like.
If
you
I
would
prefer
if
people
can
just
review
it
regardless.
You
know
before
we
get
to
the
whole,
making
this
extensions
bit
generalizable.
C
E
D
E
A
A
Everyone
review
okay
utility,
build
pack
for
profile.
A
F
E
E
A
I
think
similar
to
how
we're
trying
to
start
on
time,
even
if
people
aren't
here,
I
feel
like
we
should
try
to
end
on
time.
Even
if
we're
not
done
the
agenda,
because
I
don't
see
any
other
way
that
we're
going
to.