►
From YouTube: CNB Team Leads 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
C
A
Yeah,
really
starting
up
no
new
faces
and
we'll
do
the
team
lead,
updates.
D
On
the
platform
side
of
things,
we're
finishing
up
the
Google
summer
of
code
for
the
pack
cache
Flags
they're,
the
last
feature
PR
is
at
the
cusp
of
being
merged
in.
We
just
need
to
add
a
little
bit
more
test
to
make
code
Club
happy
for
that
other
than
that.
I
believe
Terence
and
I
were
planning
on
maybe
doing
a
release
here
this
week,
but
need
to
discuss
that
with
David.
At
this
point,.
B
Cool
no
updates
from
learning
other
than
Joe
I
know.
I,
owe
you
a
quarterly
email.
I'll
be
honest
this
week.
Definitely.
A
Yeah,
just
let's
include
Groupon
stuff
in
it,
yeah
definitely.
C
Much
I
think
it
was
just
waiting
on
some
feedback
from
that
Builder
config
stuff.
C
Apart
from
that,
it's
not
much
happening.
We're
waiting
for
the
life
cycle,
release.
A
Okay,
did
you
have
any
team
lead,
updates,
Natalie
life
cycle.
E
Hi,
yes,
I'm
just
getting
back
up
to
speed
after
being
out
for
a
week
and
a
half
but
I'm
reading,
a
patch
of
the
life
cycle.
E
E
Besides
that,
we
made
some
progress
on
Docker
file
stuff,
while
I
was
out,
Ozzy
was
testing
the
branch
that
currently
implements
phase
one
and
phase
two,
my
PR,
the
Conoco
one
of
two
was
merged.
I
need
to
make
the
second
one,
but
this
was
the
one.
I
was
more
worried
about
so
I'm
feeling
encouraged.
E
So
I
don't
know.
What's
the
status
I
guess
we
are
targeting
the
Builder
provided
environment
variables
for
the
next
platform.
Is
that
true
stamps.
A
C
Wanted
either
of
them,
where
you
can
figure
the
out
of
crfc
through
I,
know
like
and
I
am
still
waiting
for
responses
from
Stephen
and
Emily
and
until
yeah
don't
think
we
can
merge
things
we
need
at
least
you
me
Emily
and
Terence.
If
Steven's
out.
E
It
was
like
aligning
the
way
the
platform
or
user
provided
environment
variables,
work
with
the
build
pack
ones
and
the
Builder
ones
that
have
them
all
have
the
same
like
default,
Behavior
just
be
applied
in
different
orders,
or
is
that
like
nah
I,
remember,
Emily
was
sort
of
pushing
for
that,
and
that
was
attractive
to
me.
But
I,
don't
know
what
the
like
objections
are
to
doing
that.
C
C
But
I
think
we
can
the
ideal
order
was
user
build
pack
Builder,
but
the
default
for
all
of
them
would
be
dot
default
instead
of
dot
override.
C
C
And
like
this,
would
it
would
be
a
breaking
change,
regardless
of
whether
we
gated
by
the
build
pack
API
subsequent,
build
packs
that
are
on
an
older
API,
like
you'll,
have
to
figure
out
how
to
apply
environment
variables
differently
for
them?
If
a
previous
pullback
was
on
the
newer
API,
just
like
a
whole
mess,
which
is
why
he
didn't
bother
with
that.
E
C
A
Yeah,
let's,
let's
bring
it
up
tomorrow,
I
guess.
A
I'm
gonna
put
that
on
the
agenda
and
I
put
the
new
RFC
process
I
think
there
was
one
section
that
was
missing
from
the
RFC
the
new
RFC
process.
I
was
just
waiting
for
that.
A
A
All
right,
spec
release
plan.
D
So
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
an
association
here
with
mind
and
turns
intentions
of
releasing
a
newer
version
of
pack.
D
Is
that
I
guess
our
new
strategy
was
to
sort
of
wait
for
a
new
spec
release,
in
particular
the
platform
API
Sam.
It
sounds
like
the
Builder
config
stuff
is
currently
blocked,
so
that
might
postpone
that
release
any
sort
of
thoughts
on
when
that
might
happen.
Should
we
wait
for
it
or
just
keep
going
with
the
Pack
release.
C
I
mean
I
I,
don't
think,
needs
to
block
the
life
cycle
release
or
the
back
release.
Clearly,
just
like
depend
like
we
were
just
waiting
like
if
there
was
easy
consensus
amongst
everyone
that
it
can
go
in
the
pr
is
ready.
If
not,
then
we
can
just
wait
for
the
next
release.
E
I
think
the
life
cycle
still
is
not
ready
until
like,
as
far
as
the
docker
file
stuff,
like
it
works,
but
there
are
a
few
key
pieces
like
we
need.
Ideally,
we
get
this
stuff
merged
in
conical,
first
right
and
not
be
pulling
from
Natalie's
Fork
right
and
a
couple
other
things
like
that.
So
I,
don't
think
I
mean
time
wise
I
think
it
might
actually
be
perfect.
Right,
like
it
might
all
get
ready
at
the
same
time,
but
we
should
just
keep
pushing
everything
forward
on
every
front.
A
Okay
for
setting
the
working
group
agenda
for
tomorrow,
I
have
the
build
image
envirus
on
there,
the
new
RFC
process.
Anything
else
we
want
to
add.
A
D
We're
waiting
on
yeah
I
think
I
identified.
One
section:
that's
completely
empty,
so
I
think
that
that
might
be
the
biggest
Gap.
But
if
it's
a
matter
of
removing
those
details,
I
think
that
might
be
sufficient.
A
Seemed
like
we
did,
does
it
I
thought?
Maybe
we
did
want
it.
I
mean
I'm
fine.
If
we
want
to
remove
it,
because
I
felt
like
I
was
ready
to
approve
it.
I'll
fill
in
that
section.