►
From YouTube: CNCF Artifact Hub Meeting 2020-09-08
Description
CNCF Artifact Hub Meeting 2020-09-08
A
B
B
B
B
I
dropped
it
into
chat
here,
and
so
we
should
probably
kick
this
off
and
that's
the
first
item
to
talk
about
on
the
agenda
great
all
right.
So
here's
the
agenda.
So
this
is
the
tuesday
september
8th,
2020,
artifact
hub
call.
I
dropped
the
agenda
in
and
the
first
one
is
the
helmhub
to
artifact
hub
status.
B
And
the
status
of
it
is
the
artifact
hub.
Now
has
all
of
the
repositories
that
people
have
not
already
added
themselves
over
moved
over.
They
are
managed
by
the
helm
organization
and
artifact
hub,
and
a
process
has
been
put
in
place
to
allow
transfers
by
claiming
a
repository,
and
so
somebody
can
come
along
and
actually
claim
one
as
their
own
to
take
it
back
from
us
managing
at
the
homework.
B
B
So
that's
where
we're
at
several
of
these
repositories
have
issues
in
them,
and
so
I've
been
getting
spammed
with
notification
emails
about
the
issues
in
these
repositories.
I
think
over
the
course
of
the
weekend,
and
maybe
last
thursday
and
friday.
I
think
I
ended
up
with
like
175
of
them
notifications,
so
I'm
starting
to
go
through
and
let
people
know
they
can
claim
them.
So
they
can
get
notified
or
clean
up
their
issues
for
the
repositories
that
have
issues.
B
C
A
D
The
issue
about
read
me
link,
yes,
both
of
your
comments
there
too,
and
and
you
matt.
I
only
have
one
question
by
the
way.
I
agree.
I
think
it
is
a
shame
for
readme
to
have
to
have
full
urls,
but
given
that
we,
you
know,
support
sources
from
all
different
places
and
they
have
special
renderings.
It's
just
not
feasible.
Also
the
option
to
package
random
files
is
also
like
you
said
it
could
open
us
up
being
a
weird
weird
possible
attacks
or
just
other
strange
things.
D
Even
extra
large
packages
just
need,
you
know
unnecessarily
to
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
ask
was
about
the
the
source,
the
source
key
you
mentioned.
I
know
we
have
a
sources,
but
generally
that's
not
really
used
for
the
source
code
for
the
chart
itself
for
most
current
charts,
it's
used
for
it's
an
array
for
like
various
sources
like,
for
instance,
even
the
upstream
project
or
the
the
the
container
image
source
or
whatever.
B
Yes,
it
is
not
specific
just
for
the
source
code
itself,
but
that's
where
you
can
put
the
source
code
for
maybe
the
application
the
chart.
You
can
put
any
of
those
things
in
that
array.
Yeah,
it
would
be
nice.
It
was
a
key
value
pair
rather
than
just
a
list
of
urls,
because
that
would
make
it
easier
to
display.
But
it's
not.
We
can't
change
that.
C
Up
yeah,
I
agree,
and
it
might
even
be
something
where,
like
in
a
future
version
of
the
home
spec
the
like
the
chart
pack,
we
even
have
the
option
to
put
like
your
images
and
icons
and
stuff
in
the
chart
itself,
and
that
way
anything
that
wants
to
render
stuff
like
images
can
actually
if
they
want
open,
that
chart
up
and
grab
them
out.
But
we
have
to
figure.
B
You
can
take
something
like
an
image
convert
it
into
a
data
url
and
embed
it,
because
the
image
is
actually
embedded
in
the
url.
That
would
be
a
possible
way
to
do
these
things.
I
have
not
experimented
much
with
it
to
see
what
changes
would
be
required
or
how
big
files
would
get,
but
that
would
be
my
my
short
term
easy
method
because
it
would
require,
I
think,
the
fewest
number
of
changes.
B
D
D
D
B
Okay,
the
next
item
in
the
agenda
is
actually
something
that
came
up
earlier
today.
I
was
talking
to
with
remus
over
at
jfrog,
and
so
the
helm,
incubator
and
stable
repositories
are
going
to
go
away.
You
know
figuring
out
if
there's
a
way
we
could
have
an
archive
in
case.
Somebody
does
need
to
get
to
something
and
things
of
that
nature,
but
jfrog
chart
center
has
a
copy
of
all
of
the
charts,
an
incubator
and
stable.
B
That's
like
about
900
megs,
because
charts
are
just
small
right,
it's
totally
about
900
megs,
but
they
have
a
copy
of
all
of
them
that
you
can
get
through
chart
center,
and
so
they
are
going
to
have
that
going
forward
even
after
the
stable
and
incubator
repositories
are
gone.
So
that
is
one
option
we
can
start
to
tell
people
about,
but
they've
actually
asked
artifact
hub,
and
there
was
an
issue
filed
this
morning
on
it.
B
E
A
A
A
Would
it
possibly
make
sense
to
try
and
talk
about
operators
without
being
specific
as
to
olm
or
kudo
or
non-oom
non-kudo
operators,
and
so
essentially
is
it?
Is
it
conceivable
that
you
could
have
some
metadata
around
a
helm
chart
or
around
an
artifact?
More
generally
to
be
able
to
say
this
is
an
operator,
and
I
it
may
just
be
that
it's
it's
too
a
metaphysical
question.
I
I
was
sort
of
envisioning
that
something
that
included
a
crd
would
would
count
as
a
operator.
A
One
of
the
things
that
I
loved
about
or
love
about
operator
hub
is
that
five
level,
five
different
levels
of
becoming
an
operator
where
the
fifth
one
is
like
the
super
autopilot
and
then
there's
ones
in
between,
but
I'm
particularly
interested
in
our
ability
to
automate
that,
as
opposed
to
just
letting
people
click
a
box
and
say:
oh
I'm,
I'm
a
fifth
level.
One.
B
B
B
B
That
was
different
from
this
in
some
ways
and
they
could
never
quite
get
consensus
or
or
work
it
out
exactly
what
it
meant
and
how
you
rate
things,
and
there
was
just
some
difficulty
around
it.
So
I
like
having
something
that
gives
you
more
information,
but
this
was
very
much
targeted
at
the
olm
based
operator
goals.
C
B
Not
all
operators
are
that
way,
and
so,
if
we
have
a
general
thing,
it
probably
needs
to
be
evaluated.
I
don't
know
if
we'd
have
the
same
things
I
actually
don't
know
because
they
weren't
able
to
they
weren't
able
to
publish
something.
Is
this
the
kind
of
thing
we
should
go?
Try
to
figure
out
as
a
project,
since
the
working
group
hasn't.
B
B
Yeah,
so
so
this
gets
into
which
projects
would
adopt
it
like.
How
do
you
get
olm
to
adopt
it?
How
do
you
get
kudo
to
adopt
it?
How
do
you
have
it
as
a
generic
thing
that
could
be
stuck
in
if
somebody's
had
a
collection
of,
say,
kubernetes,
ammo
files
and
adopt
it
right?
How
would
you
get
different
groups
to
work
together
to
adopt
the
same
format
and
that's
one
of
the
problems?
The
olm
folks
have
also
talked
about
they're,
moving
to
a
new
way
to
distribute
things.
B
It's
a
container
based
thing,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
it
works.
They
explained
it
to
me
in
the
last
one
of
their
meetings
that
I
went
to,
but
we
didn't
get
into
technical
detail
because
they
said
it
was
so
new.
It
was
alpha
or
beta,
and
I
like
it
was
so
new
that
I
had
never
heard
of
it
and
they
had
to
point
me
to
it
and
so
they're
looking
to
change
things
up
there.
A
E
Oh
sorry,
now
I
was
going
to
say
that
if
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
the
filters
and
on
the
left
side,
we
have
already
an
operator
filter.
At
the
moment
the
mechanism
is
very
simple,
so
all
olm
operators
are
being
flagged.
We
have
that
flag
enabled
for
them
and
for
helm,
charts
the
ones
that
have
the
operator
war
in
the
name
are
being
fluxed
as
operators
as
well.
E
So
it's
just
to
do
it
a
bit
of
I
mean
automatically
without
user,
have
to
I
mean
populate
any
metadata
that
actually
doesn't
exist
on
the
charge
ml.
So
it's
simple,
but
it's
adding
some
more
operators
to
the
equation,
and
now
a
user
recently
suggested
this
that.
Why?
Because
we
already
have
a
custom
metadata
format
for
artifact
hub,
so
the
user
was
asking.
Why
don't
we
allow
to
overwrite
some
of
the
values
that
we
can
write
at
the
moment
in
a
chart?
E
B
C
Well,
what
I
was
thinking
of
is
the
main
use
of
it
would
be
if
the
person
is
going
to
use
it
to
template
out
the
crds
and
then
use
it
as
the
like
a
dependency
for
their
other
charts,
which
is
kind
of
one
of
the
patterns.
We've
talked
about
being
a
sort
of
an
acceptable
way
for
people
to
install
operators
using
helm
anyway.
D
A
good
idea,
I
think
you
know
I
I
personally
tend
to
lean
towards
keeping
bearing
in
mind
that
you
know.
We
all
know
that
the
the
specs
for
or
helm
charts
are
in
a
more
stable
place
than
they
have
been
before.
You
know,
even
even
more
so,
and
we
want
to
you
know,
ensure
that
we
maintain
backwards
credibility
and
we
don't,
you
know,
mess
things
around
mess
around
with
things
for
users.
I
think
that
those
seem
like
pretty
good
workarounds.
C
C
D
C
I
don't
know
if
we
could
get
away
with
it
on
the
helm,
2
spec,
but
we
could
certainly
get
working
on
a
home
three-spec
if
there's
something
breaking
in
there
like
metadata
name,
might
be
an
issue,
but
that
also
might
be
something
where
we
say.
Well,
we
already
accept
you
having
a
name.
If
you
have
metadata
name
and
maybe
we'll
override
it
or
something
yeah,
we
can
figure
that
out.
C
D
C
D
You
know
I
followed
it
and
I
may
comment
on
that
at
some
point,
but
I
think,
based
on
that
and
some
of
the
other
related
issues
that
we've
been
talking
about
you've
already,
you
all
have
already
worked
on.
You
know.
I
think
these
are.
How
do
you
work
on?
I
think
the
solution
is
to
provide
additional
metadata,
metadata
files,
optional,
metadata
files
that
are
artifacts
specific
and
use
those
for
things
like
overrides
and
whatever
else.
That
seems
like
a
good
strategy.
You
know
at
least
for
now,
and
the
nice
thing
is
artifact
hub.
D
E
D
E
So
we're
planning
to
work
on
that
ticket
soon,
and
so
that
feature
will
be
available
and
we
can
stop
flagging
the
operators
and
held
charges
by
the
name
instead
of
by
the
name
by
using
that
metadata,
and
we
can
even
go
a
bit
further
and
start
using
like
the
capability
level
that
dan
was
mentioning
before.
So
it's
our
own
metadata
file.
We
can
allow
there
whatever
we
want,
and
it's
already
available
to
users
and
whenever
they're
up
to
it
and
they
they
add
it.
We
can
leverage
it
and
display
it
in
artifact,
hub.
D
Cool,
I
also
can
I
just
I'm
going
to
have
to
get
off
in
just
a
few
moments
too.
Possibly
the
format
comes
back,
I'm
not
sure,
because
I
have
a
utm
meeting,
but
I'm
back,
I'm
back
so
cool,
hey
well
I'll,
still
say
this
anyway,
because
it's
still
relevant.
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
say
that
to
all
of
you,
I
just
really
I'm
really
impressed
by
how
you
know
quickly.
The
artifacts
of
project
has
come
together
and
you
know
the
value
that
it
provides
is
so
obvious.
I.
A
D
A
B
I
would
start
with
the
annotations
before
we
make
anything
so
that
way
it's
backwards
compatible
where
people
are
already
using
versions
of
helm.
There's
enough
people
who
don't
upgrade
quick
enough
and
we'd
want
something
that
they
could
use.
So
I
would
start
with
that
as
our
first
stepping
stone,
because
that's
so
low-fi.