Cloud Native Buildpacks Platform Sync, 23 Jun 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Platform Sync - 2021-06-23

Description

Meeting notes: https://bit.ly/38pal2Z

A

A

Does anybody want to volunteer to take.

B

B

A

Okay, I could do it, I could do it too, but if you volunteer.

B

All right I'll, take notes.

A

Awesome, I don't wanna say I don't wanna, take the fun away from you. That's all.

A

All right: let's kick it off with um status updates.

A

Status updates I mean for me, I know I've been hes down on um proxy support within pack. I know that was one of the things dan. You know at least told me personally that he wanted to see get done. So you know it's been a little bit of a learning experience. For me to be honest, but I think I I've been working with harbor enough recently to have stronger opinions about how it should uh look, so maybe a replacement pr is going to be coming from me pretty soon.

A

B

Update for me, I'm just here as a fly on the wall.

A

It's completely fine, completely welcome big t. You got something for us.

C

A

C

Working, can you hear me no, yes, cool. um I just saw that the um product descriptor speciear that I was working on a while back joe merchand. While I was out on pto last week.

C

Do I need to create like an issued pack for that work.

B

C

Wait for the spec release.

B

I would think that the issue was created when the rfc was merged. There should be an issue unpack already, but I could be wrong.

C

Yeah david created the issue. I guess on april 4th.

B

Awesome uh does that need to be labeled with a milestone or a?

B

I don't know somehow.

B

C

I'm unsure I'm fairly new to the platform sub team and how they work on stuff.

B

uh Let's label it so it doesn't get lost. I would assume it should go into the next one, given that it's an implementation of the next api right.

C

uh There's a pack release for june 30th. Would it go in that or we'll bump into the next one, because that's not super far away like a week from now.

B

Yeah, that's a good question. uh I'm not sure if that june 30th was for feature freeze or if it was for actually cutting the release.

A

I believe it was recutting the release and we are should be feature freezing like right now. That's my recollection.

B

So I would think that the project distributes the scripture changes should go to the following one: yeah.

C

When do you answer, do you know when you usually create new milestones? Is that a thing ac david handles.

A

Sorry, um no I'm not gonna be the person. You can answer that.

A

Unfortunately,.

B

uh If we're talking about the next pack release, I just had a comment: there's a there's, a slack thread right now in taxi li about um report tomml, um which is like what will contain the build bomb uh and is not actually included in the exported image. So there needs to be some way of like getting it out of the build container uh for it to like even be meaningful right, and uh it seems to me if our goal for the next pack release is to fully support platform.

B

05 and o6 like we should do something about report tommle, because right now, it's like it might as well not exist for pac users, um I'm not sure. If that's worth uh you know delaying adjusting the release cadence, but it does seem like something that's missing from for those apis to be fully supported.

C

Yeah I'm unsure if the next pack release is committing to fully supporting 0.5 and 0.6 because they haven't in the kind of I mean 0.5, came out in december october right um sometime, that time frame last.

B

Year I just know that a pr has been merged for supporting platform, o5 and o6. So if we were planning on, you know making some sort of announcement, but you know with this release, we are now supporting these platforms. uh You know I I this would be in the report. Tommle stuff, I think, would be a nice to have because it is something that people want, or at least one person at the very least, wants and probably more.

C

There is an open issue for.

C

um Fully support platform 0.5.6 that was opened by dan.

B

Yeah- and I think the pr also came from him fully support uh wait. Where was that I was just looking at it.

B

Anthony you know which one I'm talking about right.

A

Yeah, I'm I'm familiar with it. um I think he just failed to link the pr here right, but you know it's been done for a while and it has been merged. um I'm gonna be curious about this report. Tom hall thing uh about why life cycle is getting it delete like if it's you know if this file is supposed to be, you know supported in this version like. Why is it not making it into the final half image.

B

That was a design decision right, there's actually like, as we speak for people going back and forth in slack. I think stephen is of the opinion that putting it in the image affects reproducibility, and there should be. You know an alternate way of getting it out. um You know you you could go, I you could make an argument for either way, but the way that it was in the rfc and the way that it's specified in the platform spec is that this report tumble doesn't get exported.

B

Therefore it should be up to the platform to to handle it right and right now, pack doesn't do anything with it. So you know you could argue that it. It's not supported.

A

Okay, I mean- I see, I mean I did some nuance in there right are the platforms supported. Maybe is this report tunnel thing supported? Definitely not right, but maybe it's worth an explicit issue for sure.

B

I I don't care you know like, but very strongly one way or the other, but I I do think that if we're planning in the next pack release to be like you know, pack version whatever fully support platform, 0.5 and 06. like there's a little asterisk there that's like, but not this feature you know and and that to me feels like not satisfying. So um I just think we should decide you know. Maybe we don't make that announcement until the next release and we report tomlin for the next one. That seems fine to me.

A

No, it completely makes sense. um How do we capture this right? um The people, the powers that be that cut these releases and make these decisions aren't in here? So maybe maybe action item. I guess for me- is to put it on the pr or something right.

C

B

C

Is it worth capturing that in the github issue that says fully support platform 5.6 and maybe having a discussion there.

A

uh Yeah, we can maybe try to make it relevant right. This stuff was done for a while. So I guess I'm worried that they won't see it, but it makes sense.

B

I just added an at javier. It can weigh in as.

C

Well, yeah, the pr is slated for milestone, point 20, but the issue is not. um I did link the pr to the issue just now.

C

um You said there was discussion slack. Was there a thing on github about it or was it just a conversation? Slack.

B

No, it's just it's like. uh Oh I'll put this the link in the.

B

B

Let's just say idea target for next after june: don't announce full support for the latest.

B

B

A

Something like that.

A

Okay, I think that's a good call out.

A

Maybe we could just put in the issue too, or I'd like to do that or somebody could do it.

C

Yeah, I'm also just trying to find where it is and the taxi line.

A

Where the code is or where the sorry.

A

Oh, I can link it to you if you, if you want.

C

Is this from forest.

A

A

A

Are we? Are we good on this.

C

Yeah, I think so.

A

um Next thing is: release planning, uh I don't know if we have much else to say uh from from what I gather you know, releases 30th, like we said uh we're supposedly in the freeze, I think stuff is going in. There is definitely this api bump, maybe not really much else, not too many big things this this round.

A

You know hopefully next time.

A

Any other comments, anybody who knows a little bit more.

C

I don't know anymore, I.

A

Okay sounds good, so I clicked the needs discussion uh section. I don't see anything in there just to highlight. I did make a whole bunch of issues related to the interact rfc. So you know somebody wants to triage them. uh If you appreciate it, I'm gonna move on to the rsc section uh share my screen.

A

Okay, there's this visual mode, one which you know is in limbo. I really don't know like. I said I made a bunch of issues for it. I know it's in final comment period, but you know I, I really don't know uh what the procedure is here like how long it takes.

C

uh Usually it's uh a week.

A

C

Has it been over week.

A

So I don't know, maybe it's up to someone to get on that. It's been labeled 15 days ago, but that's just all for this one.

C

uh Who is the sign for this.

A

C

Yeah, uh I would just probably bug javier when he is back around, um but he should be the one who merges this in uh for the sub team. But uh if not, uh I can do it as well.

A

Sounds good um really.

C

No impression from my view here: okay, uh for if that's what you're looking for.

A

Trust me not not at all, I'm just just highlighting uh pack. Cash options is also in final comment period.

A

May 12th: oh interesting goodness anybody have contacts on this. One.

C

This was, I feel like when I first started joining these meetings. We talked about this rfc.

C

C

uh More contacts, I think it's in the same boat, where uh javier may not be used to merging these things in or maybe he doesn't have permissions or something. um I can double check with him as an action item to see. If he just can't do it, and I can do it if you can't.

C

But it sounds like nothing has changed since, like sometime in may so.

A

C

We have a rc that is always here.

A

She's always there- and you know- maybe it's not worth talking about because it's still a draft, but you know I just did want to highlight a comment I have made in a previous session where I said um you know, mix-ins were a very slippery concept to understand and sort of the bill passed ecosystem, just the regular mixes as they are, and you know I want to bring it up again, because steven had a pretty good rfc about removing the concept of mixes, among other things, so I don't know application mixes.

A

That's all I have that's all I have for that.

A

Okay, we have no agenda items, um but is there something someone wanted to ask what reason you came to this meeting today.

B

Well, I added some to the agenda to the future topics which I guess we could pull down for the agenda.

A

A

Yeah: okay, good question.

A

B

So I mean I was.

A

B

Hoping sorry go ahead.

A

Can we uh not talk about highest priority items right now? I really sort of just don't think we have the correct people in the room I'm interested in this, but I don't think we have the right people in the room to answer this.

B

Yeah, that's that's fine, the second one for sure I for the for the first one I mean just terrance since you're. Here I just wanted to surface this. You know to the I guess, the widest audience, um because we're getting activity on the life cycle as well.

B

Basically, what it is is that hashicorp waypoint uses pac right for some language, families and arm sorry, not arm mac.

B

M1 users are not able to to you do waypoint up because what happens is pack sees that it's running on an arm architecture and when the builder's untrusted it tries to pull a life cycle image essentially matching that architecture or it's like it's the manifest list that it's seeking uh is for arm and um you know, obviously we don't have a life cycle compiled for arm yet, and I think a short-term solution has just been proposed. That pack can see it's trying to build an amd image.

B

It could just try to pull a life cycle image matching that architecture right, and that seems like a relatively small change that would then you know unblock a certain group of people from you know who are currently not able to use build packs right. So I I'm just advocating that it'd be a little bit. You know higher priority. I think javier has said that he would welcome a pr for that, but I don't know who uh is actively working on it. I don't think anybody is, and I think it's important.

C

We support architectures besides uh linux x6 8664, that isn't windows.

B

C

Like should the check just be if you're on windows, you get windows and then anything else we assume is x8664 or do we want to hard code mac specifically.

B

That seems like it could work until the life cycle itself supports arm. I feel like that, you know, would would be just fine.

B

um I'll just note that as a possible way forward, maybe I can put that on the issue.

C

C

Because the only the only reason we have, I guess any type of architecture support is to support windows right. I assume.

B

I think it's, I think it's the way that we are pulling the image. I I'd have to go look, but I I believe it's like the image fetcher you know is looking at the architecture that pac itself is running on and like putting that in the request. I I I haven't seen the code in a while, so I'm not exactly sure what where it's coming from, but.

C

I see what javier says he says we should match the builder images, os architecture.

B

C

Instead of the host machine yeah, I think that makes sense, um and so your question is what is the priority of this like to me specifically.

B

I'm I I'm of the opinion that it should be a higher priority, but I'm advocating that it'd be a priority. I don't know what the priority is at the moment.

B

Maybe we don't have the people, as you said, anthony to really answer that question, but.

B

A

It's a good call out um for sure. Sorry, I'm just uh you know peeking at this brian fellow seeing how bad you know trying to gauge how badly he wants it right.

B

So it it just, it hasn't just been brian right. It's been like on the life cycle side. We have this issue, that's like support art right, it's a blanket issue. That's that captures a lot of of, wants and needs, and we've had at least three people. I think three, maybe it's just I mean I can check but like numerous people be like, I cannot use waypoint because you don't support arm and then I you know I respond to each one. Oh actually like you could build images on your on your um on your mac.

B

M1, like you know today, if only this pack issue right or the alternative right is that you know within waypoint they configure the builder to be trusted. So that's something that I've asked on hashicorps like forum.

B

Well, if that's a change they can make, because that would also like instantly solve this problem.

C

Yeah the I mean the the proposal. Javier had makes a lot of sense on our side like. Why are we pulling a life cycle image that isn't compatible with the builder you're trying to build against yeah, like that seems, regardless of what hashicorp does that seems like a bug, yeah um arm support?

C

Do people actually want our life cycle to run against?

C

Like do we have arm builder images that we're building in docker like no, I don't know if we actually like, I feel like emily's thing that she opened in october has nothing to do with m1 max right. It's about just supporting arm generically.

C

uh I imagine the people that are running to issues aren't actually looking for uh this exact thing right, yeah,.

B

They're not deploying to.

C

Arm most likely.

B

Yeah that that I I agree with so I think that the only reason I'm bringing up that issue is like that is where people land, when they're trying to complain about about that problem.

B

So you know I don't know, maybe there's a way like on the lifecycle side. You know we just throw it into the next milestone and then, if somebody doesn't agree, they can kick it out. I don't know if there's a way to like bump this one so that someone will look at it. You know.

C

Life cycle, do you mean hack and platform.

B

Oh I'm just I guess, I'm asking what the platform team what mechanism the platform team has to designate certain issues as higher priority and github.

A

You know, honestly from my time here as a contributor, I haven't seen any sort of thing like that. um You know if it's in a milestone, it's usually right for picking word of mouth.

C

Yeah, I guess in all the sub team sync me's I've been in, I haven't actually seen milestones created, so I wasn't that's kind of why I asked the question I think at the beginning of the meeting.

A

Yeah, I haven't seen it be created as well. I've just seen it right, but.

C

It naturally appears yeah.

B

I'm at mentioning javier again.

C

Real popular guy.

C

uh No, I think this could fall out emily. um I think, if it's a thing that is affecting people from using m1 max, because there is a mismatch, we probably should try to prioritize getting it in. um Are you saying you want this in like the 0.20 release, or are you okay, pushing this out.

B

Oh, I'm I'm not, I'm not. You know saying it should go into the the the next one right, the one that's we're gonna cut next week. I just think you know right now. Its status is like help wanted, like it's just going into the basket of issues of which there are dozens and dozens of them, and I want it to be. You know elevated a little bit. That's all.

C

Yeah, do you know if javier is out.

B

I don't know he's he's no he's in he's actually talking in slack as we speak, so I don't know. uh Maybe he forgot what he was asking no he's offline again. I don't know.

C

Okay, uh cause, I was gonna, say we could bring this up again in leadership. um uh I think it's worth kind of closing loop on. I think this discussion has come up with a handful of times sure.

C

uh I don't know, maybe he'll show up to that meeting, but maybe I don't know.

B

C

Go ahead, I was saying you had another gen item.

B

Oh yeah, so this is again I'm not sure you know. I wish david or javier were here as they're the most familiar, um but anthony knows about this problem. I I have been trying to update the live cycles, github actions and I'm using pac as a model right, so I have something that very closely resembles.

B

What pac currently has as the action to cut a draft release and what I'm seeing is that, even though you know I'm running this action on a branch that is the release branch when the release gets cut, it's actually tagging the latest commit on main, and I think that that.

B

I haven't dug in you know too deeply, because it turns out that the action that that we're using is like it's not getting updated very frequently, and it might you know maybe in like questionable, supported status.

B

I might just migrate over to using something else, but um I don't know if there's a problem, I I'm very open to the possibility that I'm just doing something wrong, but I remembered that pack has an action that automatically merges commits to release branches back into maine, which is why you might not be seeing this problem right like you might not.

B

It might not have like been obvious right if you know that that you're, actually just tagging maine instead of what's on the release branch, because those commits might be like equivalent right, um but there there could be a problem. I I don't know enough at this point to say that there definitely is, but I also don't know what could you know what what I'm doing differently than pac and I'm seeing this issue on a life cycle site so.

B

C

Gotcha is this related to.

C

uh I saw you doing some work on some of the github action stuff in slack yeah yeah, the like outdated kind of actions, release stuff.

B

Yeah yeah there's been like many, I don't know. I feel, like I've been kind of sharing stuff, as I learn it, without a lot of clarity in what's going on, um but yeah, I'm I'm I'm doing stuff in github actions, and I'm I'm uncovering questions that I'm not able to answer, and I have a growing suspicion that we're doing something wrong in pack. But I don't know how to prove it.

C

Is javier, the one who did most of that stuff.

B

Who's, javier and david.

B

I'll continue to update that thread uh david, I think responded to one of them.

B

And I might, I might prod a little further if I'm not able to get. You know a clear answer, maybe for david and javier to look at it just because I.

B

You could see a situation where you know we we tagged the commit. We didn't intend to right on the life cycle side. It really matters, because we don't automatically merge our releases. Our release branch commits back into main, so they diverge and that's what that's how I found the problem like wow. This is not the commit. I intended right.

C

B

But again it also, it could just be that I'm doing something wrong. So I don't maybe it's premature to bring it up. I don't know.

C

Yeah, sorry, I don't have.

B

C

uh Helpful to add, uh since I have not looked or kind of worked on any of those things.

C

C

Are all those under the github actions repo? That's like what everyone's using uh these seem like for actual users of build packs, though.

B

Right? Which ones.

C

uh There's a github actions repo, but I think it's all for like registry and other stuff.

B

Oh yeah, I know this is.

C

Almost stopped, that's just in our own repos themselves,.

B

Well, at this point, I I can see that it's it's um it's like a third-party github action right like that we're invoking from one of our workflow.

B

B

And like I'm suspecting is that, because what I did this is I don't. I don't know how relevant this is, but, like I'm, I'm switching over to using the gh cli right that comes pre-installed on the github actions runners and uh it's like they have a flag, that's the target branch to uh to tag, and it says default main branch right. So I have this suspicion that you know the soft props like this third-party github action that we're using also defaults to the main branch and we're just not setting it.

B

We're not like you know, and I'm trying to dig into their docks to see if they offer that as a toggle, but.

B

B

uh I'll try to find more info, but.

B

Yes, these two months they said, support, custom target committed value, determines where the get tag is created from can be any branch or commit shot. So that's an option that they added two months ago before I I'd, have to look at the code, but I would suspect that it would just default to main right and I don't think we specify that in our at least pax action definition.

B

Therefore, we're just always tagging the latest commit on main as the thing we release.

B

That would be my guess, based on what I know so far and that's again because pac is, is automatically merging stuff from the release branch back to maine like that's, they should be equivalent right, but uh it's not what we're intending to do. I don't think I think we're intending to to actually tag the latest commit on the release branch.

B

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe so that's you know david and javier would probably know what was the intention.

C

C

Yeah sorry, I just feel like you came here and just need to talk to javier and david, who are not here, you're stuck with anthony, and I.

B

That's fine I'll ping them in other channels. At least we have it written down.

B

Should we adjourn.

C

Yep, unless someone else has something else,.

B

A

That's all we got thanks thanks. Everybody.

C

Thanks for running this, anything.