►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210707
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
Hi
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
cncf
working
group
principles
committee
meeting.
Please
abide
by
the
cncf
code
of
conduct.
These
sessions
are
recorded
cool,
so
we
can
start
off
by
just
putting
in
some
topics
and
agenda
items
for
the
meeting.
We
don't
have
anything
at
the
moment.
A
There
were
three
action
items
it
came
out
of
last
week,
which
you
can
probably
start
with.
A
Two
of
those
were
for
you,
scott,
the
updating
of
the
glossary,
fixing,
broken
broken
link
and
revisiting
the
software
system.
Definition.
B
Yes,
I
so
I
did
that
in
a
pull
request,
that
a
pull
request
against
dan's
simplification,
pull
request
of
the
single
line,
title
of
the
of
the
principles
I
didn't
want
to
put
that
on
the
agenda,
because
I
I
thought
last
week
it
was
really
productive
to
go
ahead
with
what,
with
what
we
started
doing
but
but
yeah
that's
my
update
is
I'll,
go
ahead
and
send
you
the
the
pr.
B
I
just
don't
want
to
be.
I
don't
want
to
distract
us
like
too
much
but
yeah.
Those
are
action
items.
So
here
we
go.
B
Do
you
feel
like
mush?
What
do
you
think,
and
I
guess
team,
what
do
you
think
about
continuing
what
we
did
last
week
with
going
through
the.
B
B
B
D
Scott,
yes,
so
what
was
the?
What
was
the
follow-up
from
the
discussion
last
last
week.
B
You
mean
about
the
simplification,
pr
yeah,
I
okay,
so
I
made
one
I
might
have
gone
a
little
overboard
because
there
was
another
piece
of
information
that
I
it
was
one
other
additional
thing
that
I
did
was
switch
the
order
of
to
or
propose
switching
the
order
to
the
principles
because
of
feedback
from.
B
I
am
completely
spacing
out
right
now
on
on
who
it
was
that
I
know
him,
but
I
my
mind
is
just
drawing
a
blank
here.
D
Okay,
so
I
thought
that
last
week
we
were
discussing
something
that
was
different
from
the
core
principle
statement.
B
Yeah
we
were,
we
were
right,
it's
very
hard
for
me
not
to
want
to
get
bogged
down
this
I'm
trying
not
to
so.
I
just
put
a
note
just
for
a
future
rep.
I
just
put
a
note
in
the
doc
on
that
old
agenda
item,
so
we
can
look
at
that.
We
don't
have
to
do
that
on
this
call
thanks
motion,
I
guess
I'll
I'll
I'll
share
my
screen.
Maybe
that
will
help.
B
I
think
what
what
I
know
that
we
did
was.
We
went
through.
We
were
going
through
the
the
files
ultimately.
D
B
B
I
guess
this
is
browser
memory.
Give
me
one
second
here.
B
B
So
basically,
what
we
did
was
we
went
through
these.
We
went
through.
B
The
changed
files
here
we
did
a
quick
review
of
what
the
files
were,
that
that
we
wanted
to
review
and
then.
B
So
we
we
basically,
this
is
what
we
basically
did
in
part
before
we.
We
at
first
had
the
discussion
chris
about
simple.
There
was
some
we
discussed
dan's
pr
to
to
just
to
just
simplify
the
the
the
principles,
initial,
the
style
of
how
each
principle
was
described,
essentially
you're,
just
saying
the
principle
of
the
principle
of
the
principle,
love
and
feedback,
one
of
the
big
points
of
feedback
was
that
felt
fairly
redundant
and
it
seemed
like
nobody
really
strongly
disagreed
with
that,
but
it's
still
a
pr.
It's
not
like.
B
There's
any
group
decision
made
it's
just
a
pull
request.
I
made
a
pull
request
on
his
in
order
to
take
what
we
discussed
and
put
it
into
form.
So
it's
up
to
him.
I
think,
to
merge
that
into
his
pr
and
see,
and
then
it's
up
to
the
rest
of
the
group
to
see
if
that
they
like
that
vr,
I
think
that's,
okay,
yeah.
A
Are
we
working
in
the
working
group
or
the
documents.
B
We
were
working
in
the
documents
repo.
I
thought
I
had
linked
the
pull
requests,
but
I
guess
I
didn't
so
this.
This
is
the
pull
request
that
dan
started.
This
was
the
discussion
that
was
on
it.
There
were
some
had
summarized
like
what
it
sounded
like
folks
were
saying
that
there
were
different
ways
of
restating
the
style
of
the
initial
sentence,
and
you
know
either
as
just
removing
the
principle
of
over
and
over.
But
then
the
question
was:
how
were
we
going
to
deal
with
that?
B
Either
leave
it,
as
is
just
without
that
word
or
format
them
as
axioms,
which
is
one
of
the
someone's
suggestion
and
then
the
other
was
to
to
format
them
as
commands,
and
then
they
were
jesse
gave
a
couple
of
william
jesse
robert
gave
some
suggestions
and
then
last
meeting
we
just
we
discussed
them
so
based
on
those
discussions,
everybody
seemed
happy
with
the
axiomatic
approach
so
based
on
that,
I
made
a
pr
not
against
maine,
but
against
against
the
full
request,
branch
and
dan's
pull
request.
B
It
could
be
a
standalone
pr,
but
likewise
so
and
all
it
does
is
it
ultimately
did
those
things
and
it
moved
the
it
proposed,
moving
the
glossary,
the
notes
to
glossary
items,
and
so
that's
something
I'd
like.
Basically,
I
just
want
to
link
it
here
and
that's
something
I'd
like
your
feedback
on
and
group.
B
B
Yeah,
it
also
addressed
the
last
point
that
that
dan
received
feedback
on
earlier,
which
is
that
principle
four
seemed
redundant.
We
are
completely
redundant.
We
knew
that,
but
there
was
also
another
goal
for
it.
B
If
I
understood
correctly,
which
was
which
was
that
we
really
do
want
people
to
operate
this
like
humans
to
operate
the
system
through
declaration
changes,
not
not
just
the
fact
that
declarations
should
exist
or
that
reconcilers
should
be
should
be,
should
be
reconciling
them,
but
that
this
is
actually
how
humans
tell
the
reconcilers
what
to
do,
or
you
know
the
soccer
agents
to
do
so.
B
The
suggestion
here
was
to
just
swap
three
and
four
so,
instead
of
it
just
simply
saying
it
should
follow
all
these
principles,
it
took
a
version
of
what
people
said
before
and
and
just
and
just
simply
says
that,
and
then
it
just
and
then
just
swapped
exactly
the
order.
That
was
the
only
real
difference
there.
B
Besides
moving
the
notes
we
had,
we
had,
we
had
three
notes
and
those
were
one
was
moved
to
a
principal
in
order
to
say
that
and
one
was
moved
and
the
other
two
were
moved
to
glossary
items.
So
I
just
wanted
to
get
people's
feedback,
not
necessarily
right
now,
because
it's
a
bit
to
read
through,
but
that's
just
the
summary.
B
So,
for
example,
you
know.
A
The
the
system
state
yeah
a
better,
a
better
glossary
item
for
system
state
heights.
Oh
what
what
a
system
or
software
system
means.
B
Right
we
didn't-
I
didn't
do
that
in
this,
but
that's
that's
something
that
we
can
definitely
do
and
I
did
update
the
state
store
because
there
was
a
broken
link
in
it.
So
I
had
to
describe
what
we
intended
with
that
broken
link
and
that's
all
I
really
did
there
wasn't
anything
really
special
that
I
changed
there
and
again
I
haven't
changed
anything.
This
is
just
a
request
against
another
pull
request.
So
it's
a
it's
very,
very
much
in
the
proposal
stage
for
the
group
and
the
other
piece.
B
The
other
note
was
I'm
sorry.
The
other
note
was
you
know
whether
the
differences
could
be
due
to
actual
state
drifting
from
the
desired
state
or
the
desired
state
changing
intentionally.
I
realized
we
had
never
defined
drift,
so
I
just
added
what
I
believe
we
mean
by
we
mean
by
drift
and
I'd
like
people's
feedback
on
that
too,
and
then
and
then,
ultimately,
the
the
description
about
regular
operations
in
the
initial
pull
request.
B
The
initial
pull
request
from
briefs
that
we
had
worked
on
a
while
back
we'd
refer
to
that
as
break
glass.
I
think
other
people
had
called
it
an
emergency
break.
You
know,
I
don't
know
that
there
was
any
any
consensus
on
what
it
should
be
called,
but
but
ultimately
some
place
to
describe.
B
A
A
Or
so
it
should
be
under
the
if
you
go
up
a
bit
to
the
current
meeting.
Yeah
I've
added
a
bunch
in
there.
So
so
we've
reviewed
the
rational
document
and
we
say
that
it
needs
to
be
reworked
into
a
benefits
document.
I
don't
know
if
we
we
all
agree
on
that.
A
B
Oh,
I
guess
it
was
brian
grant's
feedback
was
really
trying
to
remember.
Was
it
running
yet
yeah?
These
are
some
of
the
pieces
of
feedback
that
he
has.
It's
not
something.
We
need
to
really
process
a
lot
right
now,
but
we
discussed
that
last
week.
A
That
I
think
people
agreed
to,
but
we
didn't
agree
on
on
a
step
to
take
in
either
updating
the
principle
or
not.
B
Well,
what
do
you
all
think
would
would
you
rather
motion
gang?
Would
you
rather
continue
kind
of
sifting
or
sifting
through
those
other
dot,
the
other
documents
from
from
this
old
pull
request,
or
do
you
think
it
would
be
worth
looking
well
what.
C
D
Yeah,
it
seems
to
me
looking
at
this,
and
this
has
been
out
here
for
several
weeks
now-
those
pr's
and
the
comments.
We
basically
need
a
stake
in
the
ground
to-
or
at
least
I
do,
because
I'm
not
sure
at
this
point
where,
where
it's
all
sitting,
I
don't
know
who's
responsible
for
taking
the
comments
and
suggestions
and
putting
another
stake
in
the
ground
to
say.
Oh
here's
one
that
seems
to
summarize
things.
A
Maybe
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
break
out
the
new
glossary
definitions
into
new
pr's
and
and
then
just
commit
the
the
axiom
change
and
then
the
the
state
still
fixes
so
like.
I
think
we
can
do
incremental
changes
and
and
work
on
them
individually,
rather
than
trying
simplifying
it
in
one
big,
bang.
B
Yeah,
I
can
do
that
right
now.
That
would
be
helpful.
We
can
just
roll
with
it
together
on
screen,
that's
yep!
What
do
you
think.
B
B
B
Can
I
realize
I'm
only
sharing
my
browser.
A
The
the
option
b
comment
was
a
system's
desired.
State
must
be
declarative.
G
E
B
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
it
should
be
system.
Operation
is
only
through
declarative
change
and
declarative
chain.
Changes
are
stored
as
immutable
versions.
E
Out
loud,
I
feel
like
we're
reworking
stuff
like
repeatedly,
and
maybe
this
is
what
you
were
saying
chris,
like
we
gotta,
draw
a
line
in
the
sand
that
one's
a
little
clunky,
I
think
we
had.
H
E
H
B
I
I
put
the
word
change
because
that's
really
the
same
thing,
but
but
we
can
use
the
word
mutation,
yeah
yeah,
you,
you
have
a
serious
preference.
I
think
the
last
last
time
we
were
just
saying
we
wanted
to
make
these
readable
by
folks.
E
Yeah
change
is
fine,
but
I
mean
yeah.
I
mean
you
can
swap
that
out.
Okay,
I
think
we
had
used
initiated
as
well,
which
I'm
not
sure
we
had
quorum
on.
Like
all.
I
think
I
had
said
all
operations
are
initiated
through
declarative
mutation
or
declaration
mutations
which
we
didn't
like,
but
there
were
pieces
of
it
that
we
were
talking
through.
B
B
D
If
you
go
down
to
william's
suggestion
there,
there
is
something
in
me
that
that
likes
the
two
words
and
then
the
colon.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
what
I
think
what
we
said
last
time,
not
that
we
have
to
stick
with
that.
Exactly
is
that
it
seemed
that,
like
right
now,
like
one
proposal
by
dan,
was
to
try
to
like
reduce
this.
So
we
didn't
even
have
two
levels,
and
the
idea
of
the
first
sentence
was
just
to
make
it
as
simple
as
possible
as
an
introduction
or
sorry
as
a
memorizable
statement
that
still
is
pretty
intact
and
then
adding.
The
additional
word
seem
like
three
different
levels
of
quick
summary
see.
B
E
Did
this
just
be
like?
Are
we
just
stuck
on
a
semantic
here
like?
Should
this
just
be
like
a
different
like?
Should
we
just
reword
this,
because
we
know
what
we're
saying
here
right,
like
all
the
changes
of
the
system
should
come
through
get
offs?
That's
what
we're
saying
like
you
can't
optionally
use.
It
is
that
the
thrust
of
number
four.
B
I
think
so
and
that's
why
I
actually
suggested
just
swapping
the
order
of
three
and
four,
because
when
we
were
when
we
were
discussing
you
know
before
it
seemed
like
kind
of
the
subtext
of
number
four
just
being
more
of
a
punctuation-like,
and
we
really
mean
it:
that's
not
even
100
accurate,
because
if
we
did
what
I
was
really
trying
to
think
about
of
brian's
feedback,
and
I
think
we
could
just
remove
number
four
but
then
we'd
be
we
wouldn't
just
be
moving.
B
You
know
we
describe
that.
The
state
is
to
start
that
our
desired.
The
system's
desired
state
is
described,
declaratively
that
those
declarat
that
those
declarations
should
be
stored
in
version
control
right
as
a
mutilate
and
so
on,
and
we
we
at
some
and
we
say
that
the
software
agent
should
be
drawing
from
that.
But
what
we
don't
actually
say
here
is
that's
how
humans
tell
the
software
agents.
What
to
do.
You
know
like
this
is
the
mechanism
through
which
they
tell
them
yeah.
B
So
it
seems
to
me
that
if
we,
if
we
swap
the
order
of
them,
it
would
be
it
kind
of
flows,
but
I
that
was
just
a
thought
I
had.
I
hadn't
talked
it
out
with
the
grip
at
all,
so.
A
E
Mosh,
I
think
you're
getting
to
the
point
that
I
was
trying
to
make
or
you're
speaking
to
it.
I
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
we're
really
talking
about
system
operation
here.
I
guess
that's
my
point.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
say
is
all
changes
to
actual
state
must
be
must
be
induced
by
changes
to
the
desired
state.
E
Right
that
that's
really
what
we're
trying
to
say,
I'm
trying
to
specifically
use
words
we're
not
using
here
to
kind
of
up
level
it,
so
we
don't
get
stuck
in
the
weeds.
That's
why
I
like
four
in
four's
place,
yeah,
because
it's
really
it
is
the
underlying
thing
it's
like
and
and
by
the
way
you
have
to
do
all
these
things.
E
Sorry
christian,
were
you
going
to
say
something
well,.
H
That
was
to
your
point,
actually
is
like.
Maybe
I
don't
know
words
are
hard
right,
we're
trying
to
choose
the
right
words
to
say
what
we
mean,
because,
because,
because
to
me,
four
kind
of
states
like
how
you
interface
right,
like
like
interfacing
with
the
system,
is
done
by
mutating
or
changing
the
declared.
H
You
know
your
your
store
declared.
You
know
whatever
right
your
declaration
essentially
and
which
is
why
I
also
like
it
at
four
right
it
as
well
is,
is
that
you
know
it
kind
of
brings.
It
brings
it
back
to
where
you
know
you
you
you'll,
get
to.
You
know
one
two
and
three,
but
without
four
you
know
operating
it
the
same
way
via
one
two:
three,
it's
not
get
up
so
yeah,
okay,
but
putting
that
in
like
in
in
in
a
concise,
I
guess
we're
all
struggling
with
it.
H
I'm
I'm
trying
to
I'm
struggling
with
how
to
put
that
in
such
a
way
that
it
makes
sense
to
everyone.
H
D
I
just
gotta
say,
I
think,
there's
a
logic
to
the
way
it
was
originally
so
one
as
you're
saying
the
state
is
always
declarative
right.
The
entire
state
of
your
system
is
declared
second
says:
oh
that
declared
thing
is
in
is
stored
in
a
way
that
you
can
see
the
different
versions
right
and
there's
a
reason
for
that,
so
that
that
means
you
can
always
see
changes
from
one
version
to
the
next.
So
you
know
how
your
state
has
changed.
The
third
one
says:
okay,
now
you
have
your
state
in
this
declarative
form.
D
How
does
it
get
applied
to
the
system?
And
that
says:
okay,
it's
going
to
be
through
this
continuous
reconciliation
process
by
some
agent
right
and
then
force
basically
says
this
is
how
you
manage
your
system.
There
is
no
other
way
right
and
I
think
that's
important,
because
some
folks
might
say:
oh,
we
can
still
do
other
stuff
over
here.
So
I
think
the
flow
and
the
logic
of
those
four
actually
made
sense
in
their
original
in
their
original.
The
way
they
were
lined
up.
That's
you,
okay,.
C
A
Okay,
so
maybe
that
last
one
so
operations
is
through.
Maybe
we
just
need
to
add
it.
There
is
only
through
declarative
changes.
I
I
think
that
that's
right
like
I
think
it
is
simple
enough.
E
E
The
system
is
intentionally
operated
on
is
through
these
principles.
Like
you
know,
I
I
think
I
I
think
what
I
was
trying
to
do
is
is
up.
You
know
level
this
up.
I
think
what
we're
really
trying
to
say
is
that
the
actual
state
is
only
is
only
changed
through
versioned
declarative
changes
to
the
desired
state
right.
We
just
need
a
simpler
way
to
say
that.
A
Yeah,
maybe
maybe
something
like
the
only
interface
to
to
change,
is
through
these
principles.
B
Well,
I
I
liked
it
too.
I
mean
I,
I
think
I
initially
proposed
that,
because
we
were
really
trying
to
rehash
the
other.
We
had
like
18
different
ways
of
rehashing
the
other
like
principles.
G
E
It
is
a
fourth
principle
right,
you
could
say
you
know
you're
using
declarative
configuration
using
version
control
and
you
have
automation
to
drive
reconciliation
and
now
I'm
just
going
to
ssh
in
and
change
some
stuff
and
I'm
going
to
thrash
the
system.
I
mean
it's
still
get
ops,
but
like
one
of
the
principles
is
don't
do
that
right
and
that's
kind
of
what
we're
saying
I
mean
if
you
have
continuous
reconciliation.
If
you
have
an
automation,
you
have
agents
in
place
that
will
continuously
reconcile
the
system's
actual
state
back
to
the
desired
state.
E
Then
you
can
ssh
in
and
fiddle
all
the
bits
you
want
and
they're
just
going
to
get
reverted
right
if
you're
following
one
two
three,
I
think
number
four.
Is
there
really
is
a
conceptual
principle
to
say:
that's,
that's
not
really
how
you're
supposed
to
do
this
yeah
right.
So
that's
that's
why
I
keep
coming
back
to
thinking
that
it
is
important,
and
I
think
that
it
is
it's.
It's
best
served
in
position.
Four.
B
Okay
makes
makes
sense,
makes
sense
from
the
reordering
thing,
but
how
do
you
feel
about
making
it
more
explicit
again
and
I'm
really
mainly
responding
to
brian
grant's
feedback
yeah?
So
why.
A
Didn't
we,
why
don't
we
remove
it
as
a
principle
entirely
and
just
change
it
to
a
footnote
and
that
that
last
sentence
is
is
a
footnote
and
you
remove
you
remove
the
title
and
you
have
principles,
one
two
and
three
plus
one
footnote.
E
E
Saying
yeah,
I
I
think
conceptually
it's
really
important.
I
think
this
fourth
principle
is
really
important.
Conceptual
yeah
me
too.
I
agree,
and
I
think
I
think
I
like
what
this
says.
I
I
just
I
don't
like
the
word
operation.
Okay,
the
only
mechanism
through
which
the
system
is
intentionally
changed
is
through
version
mutate
like
like
that.
I
mean
because
we're
really
talking
about
change,
right
system
changes.
G
B
F
F
B
E
E
F
B
A
E
H
B
In
get
ups,
I
think
it
is,
and
even
if
you're,
even
if
we're
talking
about
saying
using
using
a
tool
like
helm
like
where
we're
actually
specifying
the
declarations
of
of
how
we
want
helm
to
operate
and
helms
re
is
storing
revisions
of
its
releases
inside
of
the
cluster
a
roll
back,
there
would
be
more
of
a
break
glass
scenario.
We'd
be
we'd,
be
temporarily
suspending
github's
principles
to
do
so.
E
B
A
B
E
E
F
E
E
G
A
A
B
But,
like
that's,
that's
the
idea.
I
think
that
that's
the
idea-
okay,
so
so
here
we
we,
we
didn't
it
didn't
bother
us
saying:
state
reconciliation
is
automated.
We
don't
think
that
people
are
talking
about
your
desired
state
here,
we're
talking
about
the
state
of
the
system
right
and
that
the
system's
desired
state
is
described.
Declaratively.
A
F
B
H
B
B
E
Like
to
to
absolutely
specify
that
there's
two
different
states
there's
the
actual
state
or
the
running
state
or
the
proven
state
or,
however,
you
want
to
look
at
it
versus
your
desired
state
like
I,
I
can
see
that
so.
Basically,
what
where
the
question
here
is,
are
we,
okay,
with
every
reference
to
state,
indicating
the
actual
state
of
your
running
system
and
then
in
desired
state
is
always
called
out
as
desired
state.
So
where
do
you
find
that
the
question.
B
E
E
E
E
E
A
F
F
E
Implied
because,
for
example,
committing
an
auto
scaling
configuration
is
the
desired
state
and
the
actual
state
of
adding
and
removing
nodes
that
implementation
is
within
the
bounds
of
that
desired
state.
It's
within
the
definition
versus
actually
having
like
a
cluster
api
spec
that
says,
give
me
this
node
right.
It's
here's,
an
abstraction,
live
within
the
bounds
of
this
abstraction.
E
B
D
So
number
one
is
the
system's:
desired.
State
is
described,
declaratively
all
right.
That
makes
that
make
sense,
you're
going
to
declare
by
and
then
second
says
that
the
I
would
say
that
state
changes
are
are
state
declarations.
State
declarations
are
stored
as
immitable
versions.
D
So
what
I'm
trying
to
get
here
is
that,
basically,
the
declarations
are
your
your
your
manifest
right,
and
so
the
first
one
says
you
are
going
to
describe
your
system
in
these
manifest
files,
all
right,
you're,
going
to
store
them
in
a
system
that
can
have
immutable,
versioning
you're,
going
to
reconcile
those
with
agents
automatically
and
continuously,
and
then
four
then
becomes
you
know.
State
change
happens
through.
D
A
A
Well,
so
in,
in
which
case
change
happens
only
through
or
intentional
change
only
happens
through
changing
desired
state.
B
B
Yes
and
so,
and
so
I
think
like
it's
super
interesting
we're
wondering
if
we
can
pare
down
the
the
specifics
of
saying
actual
state
versus
desired
state
or
whether
or
not
actual
state
is
a
really
good
word
or
if
we
can
just
use,
simply
use
the
word
state
for
that.
So
number
four.
I
think.
A
So
I
think
we
can
have
intentional
state,
so
in
intentional,
state
changes
happen
only
through
changes
to
desired
state.
D
B
I'm
also
confused
now
about
so.
If
are
we
using
on
one
hand,
we're
using?
We
wanted
to
use
the
desired
state
as
synonymous
with
the
desired
state
declarations,
so
we're
essentially
using
desired
state
as
a
shorthand
for
the
declarations
we're
restoring
what
what
we
desire
our
actual
system
state
to
be.
A
F
D
B
B
Are
the
desired
state
right
and
so,
and
so
what
chain?
And
so
what
are
we
saying
can
only
change
should
only
be
what
changes
should
only
actually
happen
with
through
us.
Changing
these
declarations,
like
you're,
saying
chris,
you
know,
like
my
thought,
was
that
we're
back
to
principle,
one
where
we're
talking
about
the
systems?
Does
that
assist?
Sorry.
Excuse
me,
the
system's
actual
state
right
we're
talking
about
actually
changing
the
system
itself
like
operating
on
the
system.
I
think
we
wanted
to
change
the
word
operating
on
the
system,
because
that
sounded
weird
to
people.
A
A
C
A
No
because
the
system
state
is
different,
so
you
can
have
multiple
levels
of
state.
We
have
a
desired
state.
We
have
an
actualized
state
where
replicas
equals
two
and
that's
a
change,
but
it's
not
our
intentional
change.
It's
a
system
change
as
a
human
operator,
I'm
intentionally
changing
the
scaling
parameters,
I'm
not
intentionally
changing
replicas.
B
B
Is
the
question
look,
so
nothing
else
has
changed
here
in
this
there's
a
proposal
to
add
actual
state
down
there,
but
I
think
we're
not
doing
that
right
now,
right.
A
Yes,
I
think
we
we
have
run
out
of
time
and
people.
Oh,
we
have
oh
okay,.
B
That
so
that
sounds
good
okay,
so
so
yeah
I'll
actually
make
a
new
pr
just
point
to
okay,
let
me
stop
sharing
my
screen
action
items
for
me,
new
pr
point
to
dance
to
point
to
the
old
pr's
and
and
we'll
comment
there.