►
From YouTube: Platform Sync: 2020-09-23
Description
- Status Updates
- Release Planning
- Windows Buildpackages
- Milestones – keeping small, relative sizing up issues
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
Contrib
vm
config
and
I
found
a
really
fun
way
to
make
sure
that
your
files
are
synced
between
the
vm.
So
I'm
going
to
try
and
incorporate
just
to
just
to
keep
the
surprise
a
little
bit
longer.
I
was
going
to
update
the
docs
to
describe
it,
but
it's
basically
using
smb
or
samba
file
sharing
to
mount
it,
which
I've
never
been
able
to
do,
and
you
can.
You
can
mount
it
over
ssh
port
forwarding
but
yeah.
I'm
gonna
update
the
docs
with.
D
Oh
sorry,
yeah
to
if
you're
making
changes
to
pack
make
it
very
easy
for
you
to
do
it
all
on
your
mac.
All
the
code
changes
and
have
them
instantly
run
a
bull
and
available
up
in
your
dev
vm,
so
yeah,
without
taking
up
too
much
time,
the
changes
will
be
up
in
the
in
the
dev
docs
pretty
soon.
If
anyone
wants
to
try
it
out.
Dude
nice,
nice.
C
B
A
Let's
see
so
anything
on
here
on
that
milestone
right
now,
that
is
open,
is
kind
of
anticipated
to
potentially
make
it
in
by
end
of
day
today,
talking
to
travis
right
before
this
meeting,
there
are
a
couple
things
that
he
still
wants
to
squeeze
in
by
end
of
day
and
he
might
require
some
assistance
in
getting
those
in
and
they
all
have
to
do
with
registry,
the
build
packs
registry,
sorry
and
so
at
minimum.
I
believe
I'll
be
supporting
him
wherever
I
can.
D
A
D
D
B
D
B
D
D
Slash
then
all
the
rooted
stuff
is
under
there
and
for
folks
who
don't
know
like
the
the
difference
between
like.
If
you
you
know,
docker
pulled
any
windows
image.
Every
single
layer
inside
of
there
is
going
to
be
a
tar
format.
Just
like
linux,
except
the
directory
structure.
Has
it's
a
relative
path
with
files
prefix
in
front
of
it
literally
f
capital
f,
I
l
e
s
forward,
slash.
D
So
that's
the
first
part
of
the
difference
between
a
linux
and
a
windows
build
package.
Is
that
all
the
layers
consist
of
that
prefix
second
part
right
now
in
the
implementation
is
that
there
is
a
base
base
layer
consisting
of
the
standard
opera
windows
operating
system
layers,
underneath
that
and
those
are
a
proprietary
format,
not
documented
you
can't
make
them
from
scratch.
D
D
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
away
from
the
first
difference
that
files
prefix.
I
always
suspect
that
a
I
guess
the
way
that
I
think
that
one
would
be
a
little
harder
to
to
tweak
so
the
problem
with
this
now
is:
it
goes
against
the
distribution
spec,
depending
on
how
you
interpret
it
as
all
things
in
the
spec.
So
I
think
there's
potentially
what
we
some
questions
about.
B
There
is
one
solution
that
we
talked
about
briefly.
That
would
solve
both
of
those
except,
I
think
it
would
cause
a
lot
of
headaches
for
users
is
that
you
could
actually
put
like
the
in
this
in
a
build
package.
You
know
the
image
is
really
just
the
mechan
transport
mechanism.
I
guess
for
the
information,
so
you
could
actually
use
a
linux
image
and
put
a
windows
focused,
build
pack
in
there
and
it
would
adhere
to
the
spec,
but
I
think
the
problem
with
that
is
like
it's
kind
of
your.
B
Your
docker
is
either
pointed
towards
like
windows,
images
or
linux
images,
and
if
you're
doing
a
windows
build
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
like
switch
it
over
to
pull
an
image
and
then
switch
it
back
and
even
use
that
image
anymore.
I
don't
really
know
how
that
workflow
would
work.
So
if
that
one
little
piece
would
work,
it
would
be
a
really
nice
solution
to
this,
but.
A
A
Dr
damon
right,
there's
like
a
different
cli
for
that,
but
you
could
still
use
the
registry
in
that
way,
and
so
that's
what's
really
frustrating
is
like
the
registry
has
all
these
capabilities
of
doing
exactly
what
we
want,
but
the
tooling
isn't
readily
available
or
yeah
readily
available
to
the
user.
So
I
think
that's
really
where
we're
we're
lacking
there.
B
I
do
think
so.
Here's
one
thing
I
think
that
could
be
a
viable
path
forward.
Is
I'd
like
to
rfc
the
spec
to.
I
think
you
know
we're
it's
going
to
be
a
windows
targeted
image.
We
kind
of
know
that
right.
We
can't
have
this
mixture
of
like
a
linux
image
when
you're
doing
windows
builds.
So
we
know
we'd
have
to
rfc
the
spec
to
just
adjust
the
format
for
the
layers,
the
layer
blobs,
because
right
now
it's
just
a
linux
layer
format.
If
you
look
at
the
distribution
spec,
I
mean
like
the.
D
B
Perfect
yeah
so
want
to
add
the
the
note
about
the
files
prefix
for
windows
build
packages,
and
then
I
think
we
should
make
the
spec
a
little
less
specific,
or
I
guess
a
little
more
specific.
I
think
the
spec
right
now
kind
of
inadvertently
says
all
layers
must
look
like
this,
which
kind
of
implies
there's
no
os
layers,
but
I
think
we
should
adjust
the
wording
of
the
spec
to
be
specific,
that,
like
build
pack
layers,
look
like
this
and
kind
of
make
no
mention
of
base
layers.
B
A
B
D
And
we
did
a
quick
look
at
the
spec,
it
does
look
like
it's
just
probably
a
few
words
could
be
removed
to
loosen
that
up,
I
feel
like
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
all
in
to
not
talk
about
an
image
format
and
just
talk
about
a
layer
format.
I
think,
like
seems
like
the
image
format
works
pretty
well
so
long
as
you
relax
the
constraints
around.
What's
in
every
layer,
right.
B
D
It
feel
like
a
good,
so
we
had
a
couple
potential
avenues
to
go
with
this.
We
were
potentially
going
to
dig
into
pack
a
little
bit
more
see.
If
there's
how
gruesome
it
would
be
to
try
and
support
baseless
images,
just
using
image
util
to
pull
down
or
tweak
image.
Util
pull
down
these
spaceless
images
pop
on
a
dynamic
base
image
just
for
the
purpose
of
what
pack
needs
to
do
for
a
pack
build,
or
maybe
it
wouldn't
even
need
that.
Maybe
we
just
use
yeah.
A
D
B
B
A
B
D
D
So
I
do
worry
a
little
bit
about
having
potentially
red-flagged
base
images
sitting
in
a
customer
environment
or
something
like
they
might
be
a
critical
vulnerability
that
yeah
the
registry
as
well
right
right
exactly
now
that
the
data
itself
wouldn't
necessarily
be
sitting
in
the
registry,
it
would
be
a
foreign
foreign
foreign
layer
but
yeah
just
that
there'd
be
some
layer
sha
out
there,
that
was
red
flagged
by
a
security
scanner.
That
would
make
a
customer
unhappy
like
the
the
the
day
day.
Two
questions
aren't
fully
thought
out.
I
guess.
C
D
A
Think
I
mean
so
far.
It
sounds
like
we're.
Circling
around
the
the
easiest
and
most
viable
solution,
which
is
using
that
nano
server
and
any
kind
of
caveats
we
could
essentially
move
on
to
other
possible
options
or
solutions,
but
the
changes
to
the
spec
seem
like
they
would
encompass
all
possible
solutions
which
is
really
nice,
yeah
cool
yeah.
For
the
sake
of
time,
we
have
one
minute
for
the
last
action
night
or
last
agenda
item
milestones,
keeping
them
small
david.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this.
C
Sure
I
will
not
keep
people
too
long
pretty
much
in,
like
a
team
retro,
we
were
discussing
how
the
milestone
kind
of
felt,
like
a
very
you,
know,
shifting
target
it
was
you
know
significantly
longer
two
days
ago
and
as
of
today's
is
significantly
smaller
and
we're.
You
know
more
easily
able
to
to
reach
it.
So
we
talked
about
different
methods
of
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
can
keep
it
fluid
while
not
making
it.