►
From YouTube: CNCF Kubernetes Conformance WG Meeting - 2018-09-26
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
A
So
weird,
all
right,
Soho
on
that
note
dan
asked
me
to
run
the
meeting
today.
I
think
he
had
a
conflict
and
unavoidable
conflict
for
today.
So
this
is
the
26th
of
September
meeting
on
a
Wednesday,
and
this
is
the
coop
conformance
workgroup
thanks
for
everybody
for
attending
I
did
put
a
link
to
the
Google
Doc.
That
has
the
agenda
in
the
chat.
If
you
don't
have
it,
you
can
ask
you,
know
post
it
again:
I'm
gonna
go
look
at
what
so
people
are
adding
their
names
in
for
the
attendees
and
let's
see
the
agenda.
A
B
So
this
topic
actually
does
time
to
the
next
one.
So
I
don't
be
surprised
if
they
kind
of
get
merged
together
a
little.
But
I
was
thinking
that,
with
the
amount
of
activity
going
on
at
least
recently
relative
to
conformance
some
of
the
PRS
that
have
been
submitted
and
stuff
I
feel
like.
We
need
to
have
more
often
than
monthly
phone
calls
just
to
get
everybody
in
sync
on
the
same
page
and
make
sure
that
we're
all
headed
in
the
same
direction
and
so
I'm
wondering
the
people
thought
about
changing
frequency.
C
B
B
With
that
I'm
a
little
confused
about
the
relationship
between
us
and
cigar
picture,
because
I
kind
of
was
assuming
that's,
we
were
responsible
for
producing
the
performance,
docs
and
and
setting
up
the
testing
and
automation
all
there's,
no
everything
that
you
know
we're
in
doing
right
now
and
that
state
architecture
would
be
like
it
is
with
other
groups
within
communities
which
are
there
more
of
an
oversight
committee
right,
make
sure
we're
going
the
right
direction.
If
questions
to
be
answered,
they
go
to
sig
Ark.
B
Now
we
may
be
slightly
different
in
the
sense
that
tea
architecture
has
more
of
a
formalized
approach.
Awesome
you
together.
We
know
that
they
approve
our
our
upgrading
of
tests
and
performance
tests
and
stuff
like
that.
But
if,
if
it's
as
you
described
him,
which
is
sig
Ark
is
we're
kind
of
like
the
work
gets
done,
then
I'm
kind
of
confused
as
to
what
we
do.
Cuz
I
I
thought
it's
almost
the
exact
opposite
right.
Well,
we
do
the
work
you
some
of
those
guys
from
cigar
car,
interesting
our
stuff.
B
D
In
our
little
readme
for
the
working
group,
it
says
that
the
charter
of
this
working
group
is
to
define
the
process
around
certifying
kubernetes
conformance,
but
it's
sig
architecture
that
earns
the
definition
of
conformance.
So
a
lot
of
the
process,
discussion
and
Google
Docs
stuff
that
you've
seen
flying
around
has
been
as
trying
to
refine
that
definition
and
describe
how
to
refine
that
definition
and
then
we
stick.
D
Testing
is
a
place
where
we
work
on
the
mechanics
of
how
the
conformance
tests
like
work
so
I
I
share
your
question
I'm,
not
which
to
me,
goes
back
to
I'm,
not
sure
that
a
weekly
cadence
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
this
group.
I
have
historically
viewed
this
meeting
as
a
useful
checkpoint
to
report
that
progress
on
the
higher
level
bigger
picture
perspective.
I
have.
C
A
minute
point
where,
like
over
time
as
we
start
to
because
William
is
not
here,
but
at
least
I,
don't
see
him
here,
but
he
had
originally
defined
the
idea
over
time,
they're
starting
to
approach
different
aspects
of
conformance
through
profiles
right,
but
we
have
any
really.
We
haven't
even
really
gotten
there
right
like
we
need
to
deal
with
just
the
base
and
get
that
done
and
get
a
cleaner
and
more
hardened
we've
kind
of
spun
the
drain
several
times
on
the
details
around
it.
B
B
Having
a
weekly
call
here
was
to
try
to
get
those
conformance
discussions
into
just
one
meeting,
as
opposed
to
spread
across
potentially
three
meetings,
and
maybe
that's
the
wrong
approach,
but
that's
kind
of
where
my
head
was
at
so
I'm
open
to
other
ideas
to
resolve
it,
but
I'm
just
looking
for
something
that
says:
I
don't
need
to
track
three
different.
Forgive
me
for
you,
the
wrong
term
working
groups,
just
performance,
yeah,.
E
B
D
E
I
think
that
I
look
at
the
PRS
and
all
the
documents
kind
of
going
on
in
the
talking
the
document
which
you
published
Aaron.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things.
I
mean
I
know
they
are
very
relevant
I'm,
not
questioning
that,
but
I
think
so
at
least
maybe
I
don't
know
I'm
not
weekly
meeting
or
maybe
by
weekly
or
bi-weekly
meeting.
But
at
least
kind
of
summarize
is
there
like
a
impact
major
impact
on
the
end-user,
like
a
company
wise,
you
know
like
so.
D
I
have
seen
like
I've,
definitely
seen
a
lot
of
engagement
around
that
one
document,
which
has
been
discussed
at
stake
architecture
on
a
weekly
basis
as
we
like
to
refine
the
definition
of
what
conformance
is
I'm
curious.
What
other
PRS
have
been
crossing
your
radar
or
they
have
been
necessary
to
cross
your
radar
that
you're
finding
you're
not
able
to
keep
up
with
well.
B
Well,
I
was
like
for
me:
it's
it's
less
about
these
specific
work
items
because
you're
right
right
now
there
may
not
be
a
long
list
of
things
to
track.
For
me,
it's
more
of
the.
What
don't
I
know
is
going
on
right.
So,
for
example,
if
something
comes
up
in
testing
related
to
conformance,
how
do
I
know
that
right?
B
C
Why
I
created
the
teams
so
that
way,
when
we
have
when
we
need
global
notifications
or
something
that
does
cut
across
horizontally,
you
can
at
the
team
and
then
the
team
will
be
globally
notified.
You
know
obviously
I
the
stage
of
the
game
of
being
involved
in
communities
for
I.
Don't
know
Liz's,
but
for
human
years.
C
D
So
I
I
guess
I
have
tried
to
operate
as
a
liaison
between
those
sundry
groups,
because,
like
I
I,
have
to
attend
state
testing
on
a
weekly
basis
and
I
show
up
here
as
sort
of
the
touch
point
to
make
sure
that
concerns
are
being
raised
in
addressed
appropriately
I.
Think
this
group's
concerns
probably
are
more
overlapped
with
siga
architecture.
D
If
you
have
a
lot
of
like
Brad
went
on
an
epic
I,
don't
need
to
know
how
many
minute
rants
about
profiles
and
fragmentation,
we're
like
we
were
all
in
violent
agreement,
and
it
took
us
about
20
minutes
to
realize
that
fact
in
city
architecture,
and
that
was
more
about.
But
what
is
conformance
when
it
comes
to
a
definition,
perspective
and
I.
Agree
like
this
group
has
a
lot
of
opinions
there,
but
that's
the
forum
to
discuss
it
right.
D
D
F
I
I
think
I
mentioned
something
also
that
the
cigarette
lecture
is
coming
up
with
the
documentation.
Saying
go:
do
this
and
we'll
all
endeavor
to
do
the
things
in
the
document
in
some
form
or
fashion
in
one
sink
or
the
other
it?
Definitely
it's
not
going
to
be
in
one
spot.
It's
going
to
be
spread
over
different
areas
so
and
as
long
as
the
people
who
are
actually
doing
the
work,
use
the
correct
labels
and
notify
the
correct
mailing
lists
and
attend
the
meetings.
F
I
think
we
should
be
fine
so
that
that's
the
way
I
I
see
it
and
we
are
not
yet
there
are
some
thoughts
in
there.
It's
a
living
document.
We.
This
is
a
distillation
of
the
things
that
happened
over
the
last
couple
of
months,
if
not
more
so
those
are.
It
contains
the
learnings
from
running
the
performance
tests
across
you
know,
including
the
OpenStack
provider,
the
AWS
ones
and
all
the
new
people
who
are
reporting
stuff
to
test
grade.
So
please,
you
know,
treat
it
that
way
and
not
as
like.
E
B
Yes,
I
said
which
I
guess
two
questions.
One
is
a
for
a
technical
one,
processing
question
for
Tim.
You
had
mentioned
when
there
is
a
topic
like
a
PR
or
something
that
comes
up
that
can
form
that
concerns
this
working
group
that
they
should
tag
it
with
the
slash
conformance,
WG
team,
whatever
just
as
a
just
runner
saying.
How
do
you
guys
actually
manage
that
because
I
I
suspect
I'm
on
the
team?
Actually,
I,
maybe
don't
know
I
don't
know,
but
if
an
assume
I
am
I'll,
then
obviously
get
a
github
email
about
that.
B
C
F
D
The
other
thing
I
was
going
to
say
is
that
I
have
tried
to
use
a
label
called
area,
slash
conformance,
which
is
available
in
the
testing
for
repo,
where
the
testing
stuff
happens,
the
community
repo,
where
the
doc
stuff
happens
and
the
kubernetes
repo,
where
the
conformance
tests
are
actually
written
and
then
what
we
could
do
is
have
pull
requests
that
automatic.
We
touch.
Certain
directories
get
automatically
labeled
with
the
area
of
conformance
label.
We
have
the
mechanisms
in
place
to
do
that
today
for
like
Docs,
that
touch
different.
D
Six
directories
automatically
get
labeled
with
that
cig.
So
it's
not
necessarily
the
same
thing
as
a
push
notification,
but
it
does
give
you
a
set
of
queries
that
you
can
run
on
a
daily
basis,
weekly
basis,
whatever
cadence
makes
sense
for
you
to
keep
up
with
that
volume
of
work.
It's
not
quite
as
Rube
Goldberg
ish
as
Tim's
method,
and
so
that's
why
he
created
the
team
to
try
and
be
more
of
a
push
notification,
especially
to
try
and
raise
the
bat-signal.
B
We
can
we
get
my
second
question,
which
is
I
like
concrete
examples
to
wrap
my
head
around
things
so
Erin
since
you
brought
or
me
it
was
Tim.
Somebody
brought
up
the
notion
of
the
profiles
so
when
we
have
to
sit
down
another
discussion
about
whether
we
need
profiles
at
all,
where
does
that
discussion
happen?
Is
that
that's
everything
that
is
here?
Okay,
that.
C
C
B
E
A
Oh
yeah,
I
was
just
I
mean,
would
it
make
sense
twice
a
month
that
is?
Is
the
problem?
Don't
you're
thinking
once
a
month
is
well,
you
wait
a
month
and
you
feel
like
everything,
just
kind
of
blindside
you,
because
we
only
met
once
a
month
or
we
still
feel
well
twice
a
month-
would
be
a
little
more
frequency
to
have
some
discussion.
I.
A
Think
from
my
point
of
view,
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
interesting
stuff
going
on
in
cigar,
and
you
know
from
my
sigdoc
responsibilities:
I
told
them
they
wanted
somebody
to
cover
sig
Ark
anyway,
so
I
said
well.
I
might
as
well
go
double
dip
right
and
cover
for
sig
doc
and
then
cover
since
there's
so
much
conformance
discussion
going
on
that's
kind
of
how
I
resolved
to
do
it,
which
is
to
cover
the
two
out
of
the
three
and
just
assume
Aaron's
got
the
whole
testing
thing
covered.
A
You
know,
I,
think
I
think
it's
hard
for
somebody
to
come
and
show
up
and
kind
of
get
a
clear
view
of
okay.
What's
done
in
the
one
group
versus
what's
done
in
the
other
group?
Maybe
because
it's
not
well
well-documented,
maybe
because
it's
just
kind
of
tribal
knowledge
and
I,
don't
know
how
to
solve
that
beyond.
Even
myself,
just
kind
of
going
to
both
meetings,
yeah.
B
A
B
Your
question,
Brian
I
I
personally,
don't
think
once
a
month
is
very
useful
to
be
honest,
I
think
if
you're
only
meeting
once
a
month,
it's
almost
not
worth
meeting
at
all.
To
be
honest
in
my
experience,
that's
why
I
would
at
least
like
every
other
week
kind
of
thing,
if
nothing
else,
just
to
sync
up
verbally
with
everybody
else
about
what's
going
on
what
people
think
they
should
be
working
on
what
things
are
going
well,
what
things
need
attention,
because
otherwise
I'm
not
sure
how
that
happens,
I'm
not
sure
what
are
the
mechanisms
would.
G
F
F
E
That's
where
the
whole
clarity
around
what
is
process
and
what
is
what
just
did
dims
so
mention
a
G,
so
I'm
gonna
confuse
as
well.
So
when
nothing
Tim
mentioned
that.
What
we
discussed
in
this
working
group
is
a
process
thing,
so
I'm
yeah
so
profile,
obviously
one
good
example
of
that,
but
other
than
that.
But
just
Tim
sir
mentioned
right.
F
E
F
I'm
asking
is,
it
seems
that
so
far,
this
group
has
been
doing
the
post
work
in
the
sense
that
everything
is
done
and
the
main
cake,
a
repository
after
that
people
take
that
output
and
try
to
do
something
with
it
here.
That
is
what
I
have
seen.
I
mean
I've
heard
at
least
that
this
group
is
doing
if
it
needs
to
change
to
say.
Ok,
we
are
going
to
be
full
fully
invested
in
actually
make
driving
changes
to
the
test,
feed
that
is
in
main
cake,
a
repository.
Then
we
should
not.
F
A
A
little
bit
of
history,
one
thing
that
we
did
do
and
take
ownership
for
the
first
release,
is
you
know
making
sure
or
that
you
know
that
the
plan
was
to
go
document
the
test.
So
once
we
did
analysis
and
said,
ok,
well,
these
are
one's
all
labeled
conformance
and
make
sure
the
label
wrote.
You
know
they
were
already
labeled
and
they
seemed
like
to
make
sense.
They
were
the
right
test,
somebody
to
go
in
and
add
a
little
all
the
descriptions
that
were
in
the
spreadsheets
and
put
them
all
into
the
code
right.
A
So
we
did
take
some
ownership.
There
I
mean
I,
know
myself
personally
did
a
large
number
of
those
trying
to
get.
You
know
some
notion
of
a
reference
documentation
for
the
tasks,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
the
split
was
before
on
the
first
release
Tim,
so
it
seemed
like
did.
Did
we
write
and
and
test
know
where
we
trying
to
add
the
conformance
piece?
Whether
was
the
that
window
dressing,
creating
the
references
or
you
know
the
other
thing.
A
C
Now
today,
him
and
I
worked
on
a
bunch
of
the
other
details
with
getting
containers,
auto
spun
up
and
getting
the
information
out.
So
we
could
actually
do
certification
because
before
it
was
just
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
hodge
podge
a
and
you
actually
assisted
on
some
of
the
introspective
work
to
run
the
containers
inside
of
the
cluster
versus
external
right.
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
details
and
I
think
we
can
probably
coordinate
execution
on
some
of
these
things.
C
F
B
C
Making
things
happen
like
like
a
concrete
example
of
one
of
those
things
I
want
to
do
is
Matt
Leggett
and
I
and
Aaron
brought
it
up
in
the
last
conversation,
too,
is
that
I
don't
want
hefty,
oh
and
I.
Don't
want
us
to
own
the
coop
conformance
container
I
want
that
to
be
published
as
a
separate
thing
in
the
KK
repo,
so
that
way
so
nobly
uses
it
sure
it's
great.
It's
a
way
to
run
it,
but
it's
not.
C
C
Do
it
like
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
do
just
to
get
concrete
examples
is
auto
labeling
of
the
entire
dependency
chain
of
all
the
containers
and
everything
else
that
gets
spun
from
the
test
suite.
So
cleaning
up
is
as
simple
as
deleting
a
label
selector,
because
currently
it
spins
a
bunch
of
namespaces
and
the
cleaning
up
and
the
terminating
can
take
a
long
time
on
foreign
environments.
And
you
know
it's
part
of
the
end-to-end
test
suite
for
Auto
running
and
tests
infra.
C
You
know
they
just
nuke
the
cluster
at
the
end,
so
you
don't
care,
but
if
you're
running
on
somebody's
environment
that
how
long
it
takes
to
clean
up
and
being
good
stewards
in
that
environment
matters
a
lot.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
do
those
types
of
things.
So
I
can
come
up
with
a
list
of
action
items
that
I
know
that
I'm
I
could
use
help
with
that.
I
think
would
be
good
for
the
CN,
CF
conformance
effort
right,
but
I,
don't
exactly
know
you
know.
C
A
F
C
F
B
From
for
me,
it's
like
I
said
a
lot
of
it
is
I,
don't
know
where
things
are
being
discussed
and
I
would
like
more
discussions
to
happen
within
this
working
group.
For
example,
in
my
opinion,
almost
everything
that
was
discussed
in
Sikh
architecture
should
have
first
been
discussed
within
this
group
and
then
take
our
preferred
answer
to
SiC
architecture
for
approval.
Again,
that's
with
me
not
completely
understanding
the
various
roles.
I
would
like
to
have
these
discussions
here.
Talk
about
what
are
the
things
we
want
to
do
going
forward.
B
D
Discussed
this
last
month,
where
Tim
really
wished
super
hard
for
a
backlog
and
I
thought
we
were
in
agreement,
we
could
we
could
have
Tim
file
issues
here.
I
also
would
love
to
put
together
a
backlog
from
a
fleshing
out
the
definition
of
kubernetes
conformance
perspective,
but
first
I
need
to
like
refine
the
definition,
so
that
I
can
then
put
down
what
our
priorities
are
for
filling
things
out.
D
But
we
did
loosely
speaking
half
a
discussion
last
month
and
God
agreement
from
this
group
that
we
wanted
to
head
in
the
direction
of
pod
coverage,
so
I
feel
like
we've,
we've
been
covering
and
addressing
the
things
you're
talking
about,
and
it
could
be
the
reason
you're
not
hearing
so
many
discussions
this
month
is
because
we've
been
busy
with
other
things.
I,
don't
know
from
my
perspective,
I'm
not
really
trying
in
notifications
related
to
conformance
I've,
been
I've
had
like
wrangling.
D
So
to
me,
I
just
don't
want
to
have
more
meetings
for
meetings
sake,
especially
when
I
hear
phrases
like
syncing
up.
That
sounds
like
airtime
and
and
I
liked.
Him
already
regularly
attend
a
bunch
of
meetings
throughout
the
week.
I
view
this
more
as
it's
the
right
cadence
for
syncing
up
about
topics
at
the
right
level.
So
how.
C
Does
how
does
this
sound
is
a
proposal
for
doing
this
week?
I
can
file
issues
in
the
CNC
F
repo
that
are
generic
enough,
that
we
mentioned
last
time
that
I'm
could
use
help
with
that.
Are
generic
enough
that
I
apply
to
everyone.
Who's
working
on
conformance,
see
things
on
different
environments.
Right
I'll,
try
to
make
sure
that
son
of
a
specific
stuff
lives
over
there
and
anything
that
follows
the
et
test.
C
B
Be
good,
I
guess
I'm
not
interested
in
take
a
phone
calls.
I
just
I
was
little
confused
as
to
what's
going
on
where
and
it
maybe
it's
because
there
has
been
so
little
traffic
on
activity
that
I
got
the
sense
that
there
are
things
going
on
that
I'm
unaware
of
and
maybe
I
was
wrong.
Maybe
everything
was
focused
on
that
one.
F
I
want
to
do
things
like,
for
example,
the
sonobuoy
supporting
arm
right.
We
did
multi
arc
four
in
112,
where
all
the
conformance
tests
we
now
work,
I
being
armed
and
other
architectures.
Now
I
want
to
do
this,
one,
oh
boy,
plus
armed,
so
people
who
are
testing.
Can
you
do
that
too?
And
I
want
that
to
be?
You
know
part
of
this
group.
If
there
is
people
from
here
willing
to
do
the
work
that
is.
A
Okay,
so
sounds
like
you
know:
it's
we'll
stick
with
what
we
got
we'll
keep
meeting
once
a
month,
I
I
think
if
I
get
more
clarity
of
when
this
group
is
gonna,
go
get
approval
from
cigar
or
when
cigar
is
gonna
say.
Oh,
this
is
time
for
the
conformance
folks
to
get
involved
to
get
their
approval
and
I'm
not
gonna
lie
I.
Think
that
will
help
me
in
the
future
to
kind
of
get
a
good
feel.
I
think
it
was
more
of
just
oh
they're.
A
Discussing
that
over
there
did
not
know
I
mean
I
mean
there
were
examples,
I
mean
of
things
that
that
that
you
know
right
or
wrong.
It
felt
like
oh,
the
hey,
that's
where
the
discussion
is
gonna
be
well.
That's
the
meeting.
I'll
go
attend
and
didn't
really
matter,
but
it
was
just
I
think
that
was
part
of
you
know
duck's
point
of
wow
I
kind
of
thought
that
would
have
been
over
here
and
okay.
It's
not
you
know,
but
let's,
let's
go
figure
it
out,
but
as
we
going
forward,
I
think
trying
to
understand.
A
A
So
I
think
we
can.
You
know
and
I'll
work
them.
The
thing
will
stick
with
that
and
I'll
mention
hey.
Let's,
let's
see
if
it's
clear
for
when
you
know
one
group
is
going
to
the
other
and
that
hopefully
that
helps
with
the
interlock.
The
the
next
topic
is
I.
Think
that
we
recovered
was
the
status
of
a
git,
repo
and
issues
to
track
outstanding
work
items
10
you
it
alluded
to
that.
Just
a
few
minutes
ago,
I
think
correct.
C
Oh
I
started
writing
an
issue
inside
of
the
CN
CF
conformance
repo
and
the
problem.
There
is
that
I
don't
doesn't
I
can't
reference
and
label
all
the
things
I
want
to
so
I'm.
Actually,
writing
an
issue
inside
of
the
cake,
a
repo
and
adding
the
team
and
adding
the
conformance
label
and
I'm
gonna
see
a
or
b,
which
is
cleaner.
C
F
F
F
G
G
G
Just
if
you're
interested,
let
me
know
which
ones
are
prioritized
cuz,
it's
not
something
we
focus
on
until
we
have
more
data,
but
if
there's
something
in
there
that
looks
interesting.
Let
me
know
that's
in
the
the
project.
Ux
area
for
API
snoop
also,
we
I
think
we
presented
to
cig
testing,
but
and
it's
it's,
it
was
interesting.
It
was
just
moments
before
the
call
we
started
going.
Oh
my
gosh,
all
the
data
is
available
in
test
grid.
G
The
audit
logs
being
available
obviously
be
that
possible
or
we're
looking
at
processing
those
all
in
note,
so
that
we
could
do
it
all
in
a
browser,
possibly
where
your.
If
you
want
to
do
UI
stuff,
you
can
just
pull
out
and
check
out
api
snoop
pull
up
an
instance
and
you're
pulling
the
data,
and
you
can
do
your
own
thoughts
and
processes
and
renderings
or
analysis.
G
It's
not
there
yet,
but
cadogan's
code.
And
then
the
coverage
stuff
is
in
the
middle
of
getting
a
crowd
job
and
I
am
so
excited
to
have
that
available.
Start
looking
at
we're
also
going
to
instead
of
pushing
the
back-trace
of
stuff
via
the
user,
agent
I
think
we're
gonna
try
to
do
matching
it
with
the
audit.
So
you
got
your
audit
header
and
the
audit,
the
audit
ID.
G
And
so,
when
we
start
seeing
these
patterns,
not
only
will
we
see
identify
the
patterns
post
with
machine
learning
or
are
there
other
tools,
we're
gonna
apply,
but
we
could
probably
generate
tests
that
and
I
don't
know.
We
need
to
actually
get
the
data
to
deal,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
the
dream
and
open
it
up
for
discussion
in
the
questions.
F
G
G
Cool
stuff
sure
I
think
a
lot
of
this.
Like
the
UI
thing.
Is
there
it's
not
much
more
than
going
to
API
snoop
that
CN
CF
that
IO
and
if
you
click
on
the
drop
down
all
of
its
manual
and
it's
not
all
in
github
yet
because
we
had
a
transition
in
staff.
So
we
have
and
now
we're
we're
refactoring
that
I've
got
Zack
Mandeville
who's,
doing
a
refactoring
actually
this
week,
so
that
it
will
be
inside
the
API,
snoop
repo
and
holding
the
data
from
the
from
GCS
I.
G
Think
part
of
it
has
been
sinking
together
like
creating
the
data,
so
we've
gotten
really
intimately
familiar
with
tests,
infra
and
Kubb
tests
and
all
the
various
ways
to
spin
up
clusters
and
I
I
realize
that
didn't
scale
for
me
or
the
api's
new
team.
To
try
to
be
spinning
all
this
up.
We
needed
to
to
offload
that
and
yep.
G
So,
with
the
with
catherines
code,
it
is
capturing
those
interactions
and
when
the
different
components
are
talking
to
one
another
right
now
we're
missing
the
stuff
for
not
GRP
black
back
to
what
I
forget
exactly
how
its
architected,
but
the
note
itself
right.
The
communication
back
I
think
I
would
love
to
find
a
way
to
include
that
information
with
like
because
we
don't
have
audit
for
that.
But
there's
something
and
we
should
find
a
way
to
you
know
so.
C
C
It
could
give
you
a
pathological
behavior
if
you're
trying
to
diagnose
problems,
but
we
could
absolutely
you
know,
have
a
feature
requests
that
we
could
submit
to
enable
it
as
part
of
this
submission,
and
you
know
enable
it
for
a
suitably
run
or
for
put
it
somewhere
inside
the
test.
Automation,
I,
don't
exactly
know
where
we
live
for
upstream
stuff,
but
you
know
we
could
figure
that
out.
D
I
can
I
control
into
that.
So
that's
sort
of
the
direction
that
this
is
headed
and
I'll
be
talking
about
next
month.
Okay
and
I'm
really
really
glad
hippy
is
leveraging
the
conformance
test.
Great
thing,
I'm
sort
of
my
dream
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
like
we've
got
instructions
on
how
people
can
continuously
run
conformance
tests
for
their
cloud
provider
of
choice,
and
so
today
we've
got
results
from
by
week.
We're
still
working
on
Alibaba
and
by
the
you
I
think.
D
But
I
do
digital
ocean
and
GCE
OpenStack
I
think
I
thought
Gardner
was
around
here
somewhere
they
may
have
dropped
out,
but
I
really
to
me
conformance,
is
a
one-shot
PR.
Submission
is
neat
but
I.
Don't
trust
it
as
an
engineer
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
actually
continuously
passing
all
the
time,
especially
as
patch
releases
get
rolled
out.
A
G
I
I
kind
of
went
through
it,
but
on
on
just
the
conformance
suite
being
able
to
know
how
we,
what
we
need
to
write
next
and
what
those
tests
might
look
like,
would
involve
actually
engaging
with
the
community
at
large
and
seeing
what
other
kubernetes
api
consumers
are
you
doing
and
using
and
if
we
apply
the
same
same
process
to
I
would
say:
let's
just
grab
all
the
CNC
F
tools
as
one
thing
all
those
projects
and
see
what
endpoints
they
are
hitting
in
that
and
the
ways
that
they're
hitting
it,
particularly
looking
at
the
stack
traces
and
using
that
data
to
see
wow.
G
There's
some
really
common
patterns
over
and
over
again,
and
not
only
do
we
have
the
source
code
for
how
all
those
applications
or
anything
similar.
We
could
probably
auto
generate
at
least
a
framework
for
people
to
go
through
and
write
a
test,
I'm
not
saying
Auto
generate
and
it
happens
automatically,
but
suggesting
some
really
straightforward
patterns
for
increasing
our
coverage
to
make
those
tests
available.
Well,
it's
it's
I,
think
that's
what
I'm
actually
most
excited
about
is
connecting
it.
Even
if
it's
not
describing
the
test.
G
A
H
Before
that,
I
have
a
question
on
the
thing
that
we
decided
in
this
meeting
about.
Moving
all
the
work
items
are
the
issues
in
2kk
back
with
the
proper
tags,
so
Tim
I've
seen
that
the
one
you
created
just
now
is
it
going
to
be
like
we
assign
a
stick
to
and
move
all
the
existing
issues
from
the
ciencia
repo.
F
So
the
way
I
was
saying
it
was
for
people
who
find
the
git
repository
for
conformance.
If
they
have
to
file
an
issue,
will
still
they'll
still
go
ahead
and
do
what
they
usually
do
is
like
I
saw
a
repo
I
go,
create
an
issue
that
I
think
is
relevant
to
that
repository
and
do
that
right.
So
this,
what
Tim
is
probably
doing
is
doing
the
backlog
that
we
all
jointly
need
to
work
on.
F
You
know
in
improving
the
common
pool
of
stuff
that
we
are
going
to
reuse
and
in
a
shape
into
the
program
that
we
are
running
here
right.
So
that's
that's
why
it
makes
sense
to
keep
the
backlog
in
the
main
cake,
a
repository,
so
we
can
show
other
people
like
this
is
the
stuff
that
we
expect.
This
is
why
we
are
asking
you
to
do,
for
example,
the
dynamic
audit
logs
or
whatever
you
know.
F
B
H
F
C
I
mean,
to
be
honest:
it's
probably
gonna
span
repose
right,
like
the
backlog
is
not
gonna,
have
a
canonical
location.
Just
like
kubernetes
kubernetes
doesn't
have
a
canonical
location.
It's
got
many
repos
that
the
data
split
across
a
ton
of
that
stuff.
So
if
you
try
to
file,
Doc's
updates
was
in
the
dock,
slash
website,
repo
right
and
you
know
for
Kubb
ATM
issues
that
goes
in
the
cube,
ATM,
repo,
etc,
etc,
etc.
I
think
the
thing
that
we
should
probably
do
is
as
part
of
maybe
the
next
meeting.
A
You,
you
know,
it
makes
sense,
I
mean
you've,
got
a
backlog
and
there's
there's
items
there
and
their
items
you're
aware
of
and
I'm
gonna
need
to
get
done
and
at
the
same
time,
you've
got
the
conformance
repo
where,
if
somebody
wants
to
go
open
up
an
issue
that
might
be
a
little
more
user
friendly
from
an
external
phase
of
going
of
you.
If
it's
just
a
purely
conformance
related
issue,
it
is
that.
C
A
C
All
the
children
get
federated
across
the
other
repositories.
So,
if
you
wanted
to
say
an
umbrella
would
be
like,
you
know,
make
Anton
test
cleaner
or
something
it
could
break
down
into
several
issues,
and
you
know
that
could
be
federated
across
that
and
make
the
docs
better
another
generic
thing,
which
could
be
the
several
issues
filed
against
it.
Referenced.
Okay,.
H
D
So
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
re
author
and
reaaargh
attack
tests
to
fit
that
pattern
and
whether
we
mandate
that
conformance
tests
must
always
be
described
with
a
single
string
or
whether
or
not.
We
need
to
update
the
lexer
and
parser
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
to
figure
out
a
different
way
of
deriving
the
metadata
and
documentation
information.
And
that
to
me
sounded
like
it
was
just
sort
of
too
fine-grained
for
this
group
to
hash
out
a
lot.
But
it'll
be
thought.
H
H
This
is
one
of
the
examples
of
such
tooling
so
yeah.
To
answer
your
actual
question
that
you
know
it's
Brian
grant
also
commented
in
the
updation
meeting
that
we
should
keep
it
at
the
individual
test
level
parsing.
Rather
then,
if
there
are
table
tests
that
you
need
to
group
and
have
conformance
documentation
at
the
test
level,
I
did
live
with
it
a
little
bit,
but
it
is
ordered
to
do
with
syntax
parsing.
It's
not
runtime
parsing,
so
yeah.
H
H
That's
why
I
said
it's
tangential
discussion,
but
still
we
need
to
consider
about
building
some
of
the
tailings
by
ourself,
I,
guess
right
by
the
way.
The
only
point
we,
the
only
point
I
wanted
to
discuss
today
is
automating
the
process
of
the
publishing
of
the
conformance
document
for
each
other
releases.
H
Essentially,
the
idea
that
I
briefly
discussed
with
Aaron
and
then
I
went
on.
The
idea
is
to
to
generate
the
conformance
document
as
part
of
the
quick
release
step
and
it
will
be
placed
as
part
of
the
tarball
kubernetes
tarball
that
it
will
be
released
only
for
the
major
and
the
minor
releases,
because
that's
what
I
think
we
should
do
and
then
have
automated
PR
generated
against
the
ciencia
website,
where
this
document
will
will
go.
H
I
have
played
with
that,
and
we
can
do
that.
We
do
use
the
github
API
and
we
can
leverage
that
that's
used
by
testing
for
today.
So
the
document
PR
will
be
released
for
each
like
112
113
against
the
CN
CF
repo,
where
it
will
be
placed
under
slash
doc,
whatever
the
location
we
currently
picked,
I'm
just
looking
for
any
comments
from
the
group.
If.
H
D
D
B
D
Expect
to
see
that
proposal
in
the
get
in
the
in
a
follow-up
comment
in
this
issue
or
get
a
Google
Doc
or
something
the
only
other
point
would
be
make
quick
release.
I'm,
not
sure
if
that's
the
right
target,
because
I
think
that's
built
for
every
I.
Think
you
probably
if
you're
talking
about
wanting
it
done
only
for
minor
and
major
releases.
You
probably
want
that
done-
is
to
make
release
target,
not
make
quick
release
right.
F
But
then
my
question
is:
why
do
we
actually
need
to
do
that?
Can
we
because
all
the
artifacts
are
available
in
various
places
that
that
are
generated
by
the
release
process
as
well?
As
you
know,
we
already
also
have
the
git
repository
branches
and
tags,
so
why
does
this
actually
have
to
live
in
the
make
release
or
make
quick
release.
H
F
I
mean
we
have
publishing
BOTS
kind
of
scenarios
where
we
work
on
repositories
and
we
generate
artifacts
that
go
elsewhere
right.
So
we
can
use
that
pattern,
and
you
know
we
have
the
list
of
releases
and
the
that
we
need
to
generate
this
for
and
if
we
find
a
new
release,
then
we,
you
know
the
bot
will
wake
up
and
do
something
like
that
right.
So.