►
From YouTube: CNCF Kubernetes Conformance WG Meeting - 2019-02-27
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
A
Know
Tim
had
something
on
here
about
walking
through
the
backlog,
so
I
pasted
a
link
to
the
project
board
and
I
added
all
of
the
issues
or
PRS
that
have
area
conformance
since
I
last
looked
at
the
board,
which
brings
us
to
a
grand
total
of
49
issues
to
be
triaged
and
then
I
wasn't
sure.
If
Sweeney
you
had
mentioned
something
on
the
mailing
list
about
maybe
updating
us
on
globin
yeah.
B
Actually,
I've
been
attending
the
global
meetings
on
Thursdays
for
the
last
few
weeks
and
we
they
are
working
pretty
good
team
I
just
have
to
say
that
first
there
they
have
done
pretty
in-depth
analysis
on
some
of
the
problems.
Like
part,
lifecycles
free
stop
hook,
they
found
out.
There
are
some
behavioral
things
and
they
did
few
key
arson
they're.
B
B
B
D
D
A
Okay,
so
something
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
to
in-depth,
but
I've
had
a
couple.
Pr
split
by
that
start
to
introduce
the
Linux
only
tag.
But
it's
unclear
to
me
whether
or
not
that
tag
is
getting
introduced,
because
it's
a
behavior
that
Windows
will
never
ever
ever
do
or,
if
they're
just
trying
to
get
it
over
the
line
and
get
this
particular
Linux
variant
of
the
test
through
versus
a
Windows
variant
of
the
test.
A
So
the
one
I
most
recently
ran
into
is
a
test
that
was
related
to
DNS
was
split
up
so
that
previously
the
test
looked
for
both
DNS
and
Etsy
hosts,
and
then
it
was
split
up
into
a
test
that
looks
for
a
cluster
DNS
and
then
also
looks
for
entries
and
Etsy
hosts,
and
the
Etsy
hosts
test
was
tagged
as
Linux.
Only
because
Windows
can't
mount
individual
files
for
pods
I.
E
E
So
I
reviewed
a
lot
of
these
test
changes
to
tag
tests
with
Linux
only
including
that
one,
the
I
pushed
the
Windows
folks
pretty
hard
to
get
a
very
detailed
description
of
what
is
possible
today
and
what
will
ever
be
possible
and
why?
What
the
reasons
are
for
the
limitations
for
Windows?
So
please
refer
to
the
kept,
and
if
something
is
not
clear
from
the
windows
support
kept,
we
should
get
it
added
to
the
kept
they've
been
very
good
about
adding
additional
levels
of
detail
like
the
latest.
E
E
Quite
a
number
of
changes
need
to
be
made
and
a
number
of
components
to
make
that
happen,
as
has
been
explained
to
me,
and
that
is
kind
of
summarized
in
the
cap,
so
it
falls
into
a
big
bucket.
You
know
there
were
claims
made
that
maybe
OS
changes
even
we're
needed.
That's
not
a
hundred
percent
clear
in
terms
of
what
OS
change
means
in
that
context,
exactly
like
how
deep
are
the
change
that
would
be,
but
it's
definitely
not
a
kubernetes.
E
Only
change
that
would
be
required,
so
I
would
suggest
that
we
just
tackle
all
of
those
at
the
same
time,
if
somehow
that
becomes
feasible
in
the
future,
they
should
all
be
labeled,
with
the
reason
that
you
know
this
is
Mark
Linux.
Only
due
to
this
single
mount
file
thing,
so
it
should
be
possible
to
find
them,
maybe
not
fully
automatically,
because
there's
not
like
a
tag
for
that
specific
issue,
but
they
all
have
English
text.
It
explains
that
in
in
the
comments
section
yeah.
D
A
A
E
Don't
I
don't
know
the
answer
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
agree:
there
needs
to
be
an
automated
way.
If
we
were
to,
you
know,
try
to
ascertain
conformance
for
Windows.
You
need
to
be
an
automated
way
to
sort
that
out,
but
given
that
it's
not
part
of
conformance
yet
I
didn't
worry
about
that
step.
Yet,
like
we
haven't
figured
out
if
it's
gonna
be
additive
or
orthogonal
or
whatever
even
right.
A
A
A
A
A
Looking
at
the
existing
conformance
test
dashboards
on
test
grid,
it
appears
as
though
the
113
release
of
kubernetes
contains
214
conformance
tests
and
the
114
release
of
kubernetes
as
it
is
currently
standing,
contains
216
for
a
grand
total
of
two
additional
conformance
tests.
I
feel
like
we
could
be
doing
better.
B
E
E
A
A
E
E
It
helps
to
apply
structure.
So
if
there
are
multiple
tests
that
need
to
be
reviewed
by
a
sig,
I
suggest
frame
e
in
an
email
and
sending
it
to
that
SIG's
mailing
list
saying
look:
we
need
to
make
cover
these
features
or
whatever
that
covers
functionality
of
your
cig.
Can
you
please
make
sure
that
we
have
the
right
people
looking
at
those
changes?
Okay
and
then,
once
it
has
passed
the
cig
level
review
by
the
appropriate,
the
reviewers
and
approvers
and
not
sig.
E
If
it's
just
a
test
change
for
test,
not
labeled
conformance,
then
it's
done
and
it
can
just
get
merged.
If
the
test
is
already
labeled
conformance
or
it
is
being
added
to
conformance,
then
one
of
the
conformance
approvers
needs
to
be
added
to
that,
and
there
are
only
four
of
those
right
now,
because
we
need
to
now
on
board
more
folks.
E
So
if
you
are
interested
in
that
definitely
volunteer,
and
we
can
start
doing
some
sort
of
shadowing
much
like
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
API
review
process
and
kubernetes,
but
right
now
those
people
are
Erin,
dims,
Tim,
Sinclair
and
me
and
well,
I.
Guess,
there's
a
fifth
one
clayton
who
sometimes
will
review
things
that
when
he's
tagged,
but
he
he's
not
as
active
on
that
you
know
and
and
even
among
those
people
like
if
you're
not
comfortable
approving,
because
it
you
don't
have
the
domain
expertise,
definitely
loop
in
those
domain
experts.
E
A
What
am
I
trying
to
say
so?
We've
tried
a
couple
different,
like
let's
use
a
smaller,
more
focused
channel
to
make
sure
that
people
are
aware
there
was
a
project
board
in
the
architecture
tracking,
where
I
would
move
things
around
in
the
column
and
then
I
would
try
to
ping
Brian
or
Clayton
directly
in
slack
and
point
them
at
that
column,
whence
things
had
stacked
up
there
that
worked.
A
Me
actually,
okay,
so
we
could
go
back
to
doing
that
model.
Another
thing
I
feel,
like
you,
suggested
on
the
mailing
list,
when
Patrick
had
a
question
that
he
wanted
to
address
was
just
use
the
mailing
list.
We
don't
often
send
a
whole
bunch
of
traffic
on
the
mailing
list,
and
so
we
could
send
something
about
a
PR
being
ready
for
conformance
approval
on
the
mailing
list.
E
Yeah
so
there's
the
conformance
mailing
list,
which
is
SuperDuper
low
traffic,
so
I
don't
have
to
filter
it
and
probably
other
people
don't
either
if
they're
really
interested
in
this
area,
they're
also
the
sig
specific
mailing
list
so
again,
gab
notifications
are
super
hard.
The
teams
don't
have
the
right
people
in
them.
A
lot
of
people
are
subscribed
to
issues
in
PRS
and
they're,
no
longer
the
dust,
people
or
the
right
people
at
all,
and
so
on.
So
I
really
recommend
you
know
using
other
forms
of
contact.
The
gap.
E
A
I
understand
shepherding
around
other
SIG's
I'm
just
trying
to
later
so
what
I've?
What
I
want
this
group
to
try
and
get
to
you
to
help
out
newcomers
such
as
Steve,
who
have
volunteered
to
help
us
with
this
problem,
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
looking
at
one
list
that
is
prioritized
according
to
this
group's
agreement.
That
is
not
something
that
I
personally
individually
can
do.
I
feel
like.
We
owe
it
to
ourselves
to
prioritize
that
list
and
get
agreement
that
that
is
correct,
prioritization.
A
So
that's
why
the
project
board
I
have
linked
in
the
meeting.
Notes
has
a
to
triage
column
and
then
a
prioritized
inbox
column.
Is
that
what
I
called
it
sorted
backlog
column
and
then
we
could
be
working
off
of
that
sort
of
backlog,
but
I
also
want
us
to
use
one
channel
for
that.
High
signal.
Hey
think
this
is
a
ready
for
conformance
approval.
A
So
to
me,
I
feel
like
using
the
mailing
list,
which
is
currently
low.
Traffic
would
be
the
path
forward,
whether
that's
a
link
to
the
PR
in
question
or,
if
that's
a
link
to
a
column
on
our
project
board.
That
way,
we
are
all
looking
at
the
same
thing
and
we're
all
using
the
same
channel
so
yeah
beyond
that,
like
I,
got
to
stop
talking
because
I'm
really
focused
on
114
and
haven't
had
time
to
dedicate
to
this
yeah.
B
One
thing
I
can
do
is
basically
I'm
maintaining
based
on
some
of
the
areas
that
Tim
asked
us
to
work
on
I
created
a
spreadsheet
I
can
actually
on
a
weekly
basis,
update
the
status
on
the
spreadsheet
and
the
link.
That's
sketchy
to
send
it
to
the
work
conformance
work
group
mailing
list
on
a
weekly
basis
or
to
start
with,
and
if
that's
too
much
of
emails,
then
I
can
do.
D
I
I
like
that
idea,
just
because
once
we
get
into
some
kind
of
rhythm,
then
people
will
say:
oh
okay,
there
is
this
email.
There
is
this
four
things
that
that
I
can
help
with
so
go.
Do
that
then
go
do
something
else
right,
so
just
getting
into
that
rhythm
seems
to
be
like
the
right
thing
to
do
here.
I
agree,
good.
F
A
Hear
you,
while
we're
waiting
I'll
just
do
my
usual
spiel,
where
I
have
found
that
spreadsheets
are
a
source
of
pain,
because
you
ultimately
have
to
reconcile
that
spreadsheet
with
the
state
of
kid
hub,
which
is
where
all
of
the
work
actually
happens,
which
is
why
I
would
suggest
that
we
try
using
a
project
board
and
consistent
use
of
priority
labels.
If
nothing
else,
to
give
us
some
form
of
rough
ordering
in
the
buckets
I
have
works.
B
A
H
To
echo
Aaron's
thoughts
around
not
using
the
spreadsheet
and
to
see
about
having
someone
go
through
that
on
a
regular
basis
like
on
a
weekly
and
make
sure
that
we
have
this
email.
That's
after
we've
gone
through
and
contacted
the
sig
so
going
through
the
SIG's
in
that
week
and
then
going
through
the
rotation
and
looking
at
those
tickets
with
it
an
email,
I,
don't
know,
we've
talked
about
doing
this.
Brad
should
be
good
to
maybe
shadow
with
where
that
spreadsheet
is
now
and
see.
E
Yeah
and
just
for
my
own
workflow
I
also
prefer
the
github
based
solution,
not
notifications,
but
the
project
boards,
when
they
are
up
to
date,
have
been
working
well
for
me,
they're
easy
to
discover
there
to
search
they're
easy
to
manipulate
if
you're
in
the
right
permission
sets.
So
it's
really
low
friction.
F
E
So
the
distinction
between
the
architecture
board
and
the
domain
board,
as
the
main
board,
has
lots
of
components
related
tasks
in
it,
and
the
architecture
board
was
specifically
focused
on
the
final
approval
for
changes
to
the
set
of
conformance
tests
that
that
small
group
of
approvers
needs
to
sign
off
on.
So
that
created
a
really
super
high
signal
place
that
I
could
pull
when
notified
through
some
other
high
signal
channel
to
go
work
through
this
set
of
things
that
were
ready
to
be
worked
through.
D
B
This
is
very
rudimentary
right
now,
but
above
that,
but
eventually
the
idea
here
is
to
add
couple
more
columns
to
to
see
if
these
are
blanket
issues
and
there
will
be
some
issues
that
we'll
be
adding
here
and
what
the
status
of
the
submission
is
like.
For
example,
pre
stop
hook,
we
added
a
new
test.
That
is
still
needs
to
be
go
through
the
sake
to
get
added,
and
then
we
will
push
you
to
component
so
that
level
of
tracking
I
cannot
do
it
through
traffic
dashboard,
but
in
the
spreadsheet,
aren't
planning
to
do
Jenny.
D
Did
we
use
the
umbrella
issues
also
for
things
like
this,
so
right
in
the
first
box
we
have,
we
have
the
list
of
items,
then
we
checked
through
each
one
of
them
when
they
are
done
right,
so
that
might
be
helpful
as
well.
In
addition
to
the
board
project
board,
plus
some
real
issues
should
be
able
to
do
what
you
are
doing
in
the
spreadsheet
right
now.
Wait.
E
Sorry
I'm
looking
at
the
spreadsheet-
and
it
just
has
links
to
issues,
and
that
is
totally
something
a
project
board-
can
do
so.
I,
don't
understand
problem
by
the
way
in
the
kubernetes
org
we're
also
working
on
a
bot
that
will
automatically
populate
board
from
query
so
that,
hopefully,
will
make
it
easier
to
slope
content
into
project
boards
automatically.
But
for
this
number
of
things,
like
twelve
things,
that
they
could
just
be
copy
pasted
into
our
project
board
in
like
two
minutes
right.
H
F
Yeah
I
think
the
weekly
or
the
the
email
will
really
help
so
I'm
sure
we're
all
getting
pulled
in
different
directions
and
I'm
gonna
follow
my
sword
and
say:
yeah
I
haven't
done
any
reviews.
Cuz
I
got
distracted
on
twenty
other
thousand
things,
but
seeing
the
email
and
seeing
what's
going
on
well
I'm
sure
helped
me
and
also
help
a
lot
of
you
folks
were
even
busier
than
I
am.
F
A
I
mean
I
just
raised
it
cuz
to
champion
the
individual
who's,
not
here,
Tim
claimed
he
had
like
rallied
the
troops
and
had
was
going
to
bring
some
review
bandwidth
to
this
group.
I
understand
there
are
people
you
need
to
like
talk
about
this,
the
strategy
and
the
path
forward
here,
but
we
also
actually
have
to
have
people
who
do
the
work
but
and
so
I'm
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
right
structure
in
place
to
encourage
that
level
of
growth.
And
then
we
have
the
right
people
showing
up
perfect
yeah.
E
A
B
B
So
for
storage
tests
to
storage
this
we
need
set
up
with
strapping
to
two
bundles,
so
we're
creating
storage
validation,
speed
kinda,
like
North
informants
at
some
point.
In
Seattle,
we
discussed
that
instead
of
calling
North
informants,
we
should
call
it
as
node
validation
will.
Similarly
and
following
the
approach
for
the
storage,
adding
at
a
constant
valuation,
is
that
the
right
thing
to
do
or
is
there
a
yes.
E
Is
you
don't
have
sufficient
abstraction
around
all
the
different
volume
sources,
with
consistent
of
functionality
that
we
can
really
test
it
in
a
general-purpose
way?
I
think
it
is
possible,
but
it
needs
more
thought.
I,
don't
know
what
the
current
status
of
that
the
signal
storage
was
working
on
a
proposal
at
some
point,
but
I
put
working
with
them
on
the
back
burner
to
get
some
of
the
more
basic
version
things
covered.
E
B
B
E
So
that's
CSI
level.
I
would
call
CSI
validation
if
it's
testing
optional
functionality,
that
or
functionality
that
might
not
be
entirely
portable.
Those
are
just
into
end
tests,
assuming
that
they
are
into
end
so
I
don't
know
that
they
need
to
pursue
a
specific
term
to
describe
them.
We
have
lots
of
into
in
tests
covering
covering
such
parts
of
the
system.
B
Out
the
sick,
spirits
they
are
driving
this
and
there
I
didn't
find
the
test.
But
again
we
need
to
baptize
those.
Yes,
like
bran
said
some
of
them
could
be.
We
can
blanket
call
them
a
storage
validation
or
we
can
subdivide
them
as
CSI
validation
versus
flex
volume
or
validation
or
whatnot
right,
because
not
everything
is
probably
available
by
default.
Without
some
dupes
crapping
on
the
cluster.
We
are
running
so
I
kind
of
get
it
I
mean
for
CSI.
B
E
E
It's
all
the
other
network
attached
volume
sources
that
are
all
non
portable
and
all
optional,
and
that's
where
you
know
I'd
ask
them
to
think
about
how
we
could
abstract
that
into
some
kind
of
basic
functionality
that
could
be
just
represented
through
the
default
storage
class
that
a
PVC
could
take
advantage
of,
and
those
could
be
candidates
for
incorporating
into
conformance
some
way
in
the
future,
but
still
I
would
just
categorize
those
as
there
just
into
end
tests.
It's
really
the
extension
point
validation
test
where
they
want
to
determine.
E
Does
this
trucks
volume
work
at
all?
Does
this
see
I,
Drive
or
work
at
all,
where
maybe
we
need
a
different
set
of
tests
that
are
more
like
the
original
note
conformance
tests
where
they
actually
launched
cubelets
as
part
of
the
test
and
just
exercise
specific
cubic
functionality,
so
those
sorts
of
lower-level
tests
which
don't
even
have
that
mechanically,
aren't
even
possible
to
incorporate
into
conformance
when
written
that
way.
E
B
Yeah,
that's
what
I'm
pardoning,
basically,
which
I'm
trying
to
name
them
as
validation
Suites,
if
two
subcategorize
the
test,
so
is
that
the
right
approach,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
do
is
also
take
the
note
performance
tests
and
call
them
as
no
validation.
Yes,
but
then
there
will
be
a
lot
more
deeper
impact
if
I.
If
we
do
that,
I
don't
know.
B
E
To
respond
to
Aaron's
last
comment:
I,
don't
think
it's
a
new
way
of
punting
profiles,
because
just
again,
like
the
examples
that
have
been
raised
to
me
in
other
forums
like
CRI
tests,
if
it's
actually
literally
just
exercising
the
CRI
extension
API,
then
it
will
never
ever
ever
be
a
conformance
test
which
requires
a
whole
cluster.
So
for
that,
for
those
kinds
of
tests,
I
just
recommend
I,
just
pleaded
with
them
not
to
call
them
conformance
Suites,
because
it
in
the
past,
like
with
node
conformance,
has
engendered
confusion.
E
I
This
is
go
ahead,
sorry,
so
this
is
the
continuing
one
of
the
items
I
have
at
the
end
of
the
agenda.
So
st.
cloud
provider
wants
to
have
a
test
suite
that
validates
behavior
and
for
entry
and
out
of
true
providers.
I
That's
something
that
I
would
want
guidance
from
this
group,
but
it
would
be
much
easier
for
us
to
because
there's
already
like
a
provider
framework
in
the
end-to-end
test,
so
leveraging
that
would
be
nice,
but
with
the
whole
like
out
of
tree
direction,
going
I'm,
not
sure
how
much
it
makes
sense
to
be
adding
more
provider
specific
tests
into
cake.
A.
I
A
A
This
is
the
sub
project
of
state
testing,
where
we
talk
about
the
best
practices
for
how
to
write
an
architect
tests
just
for
what
it's
worth
and
I
feel
like
there's
a
concerted
effort
to
try
and
extract
the
provider
specific
stuff
out
of
the
e
to
e
framework,
and
so
that
would
be
their
own
audience
tasks.
Those
sorts
of
questions.
E
I
F
Brad
so
Aaron
made
a
great
comment
about
hey.
We
talked
about
this,
but
nobody
ever
wrote
this
up
and
it's
a
little
squishy
so
so
myself
and
and
Trini
will
be
happy
to
take
a
first
draft
at
riding
up
what
we
talked
about
and
why
we're
calling
things
validation,
sweets.
If
that's,
okay
with
everybody,
will
be
happy
to
grab
that
write
it
up
because
I
mean
think
y'all
verbally
are
talking
about
what
we
agreed
to
it's
just
that
anybody
who
doesn't
have
that
tribal
knowledge.
It's
gonna,
get
frustrated.
I.
F
D
D
This
would
just
to
kick
the
tires
and
it's
an
optional
test
which
will
not
be
triggered,
but
you
have
to
trigger
you
know
by
hand
if
you
want
to
try
it
out
so
that
it
doesn't
stop
anyone
so
once
we
get
that
working,
then
I
can
remove
the
restriction
of
just
one
test
and
run
all
the
end-to-end
tests.
So
please
take
a
look
at
that
sure
yeah.
D
It's
easy
to
try
it
out
in
your
local
environment
also
because
it
uses
kind,
and
then
it
has
some
scripts
to
build
the
conformance
image
and
then
run
the
conformance
image
and
get
the
e
to
e
log
and
the
j-unit
log
out.
So
so,
please
take
a
look
at
that.
If
anybody
else
is
interested,
maybe
you
might
be
interested
also
because
you're
doing
stuff
with
Sona
boy.
This
is
the
Sona
boy
image
which
one
got
imported
into
them:
KK
repository
last
cycle
and
then
the
cycle
trying
to
do
a
little
bit
more
with
it
I.
A
A
D
We
haven't
changed
how
the
image
itself
is
built,
I'm,
not
adding
it
to
the
any
of
the
make
cross.
Any
of
the
things
that
we
use
for
the
release
itself
make
release.
It
doesn't
show
up
there.
Okay,
so
then
the
next
question
I
had
was
the
I
think
we
talked
about
publishing
an
exact
list
of
tests
for
each
release,
because
you
know
we
and
using
that
list
to
check
if
somebody.
D
B
D
Be
a
reference
document
right,
so
that
was
the
first
part
of
the
equation
and
the
second
part
of
the
equation
was
I.
Remember
been
the
elder,
had
a
PR
out
which
would
take
two
sets
of
lists
and
compare
and
see
if
anything
got
skipped.
I
think
that
was
the
other,
so
give
people
a
tool
so
that
they
can
check
if
they
accidentally
skipped
any
of
the
tests
so
how
to
go
chase
that
I
think
so
I'll
do
that
those
are
the
two
things
I
had
Erin.
A
Okay
yeah.
As
far
as
I'm
aware,
we
don't
currently
produce
a
list
of
conformance
tests
as
a
release
artifact
and
they
kept
for
that
didn't
make
it
to
implementable
status
by
the
enhancements.
Freeze
so
nice
to
proceed
with
what
we
have
been
doing
thus
far,
which
is
a
manually
produced
list
of
tests
being
sent
to
the
Cates
conformance
repository
I.
Feel,
like
you
have
a
number
of
PRS.
That's
trainee
has
opened
that
are
a
little
backlogged
on.
A
Actually,
I'm
kind
of
unclear
that
list
is
is
hard
to
deal
with,
sometimes
because
it
strips
away
all
extraneous
tags.
So
you
just
get
like
some
of
the
text.
The
what
I'm
talking
about
is
a
document
that
is
generated
a
markdown
document,
that's
generated
that
contains
the
blocks
of
comments
parsed
out
a
little
bit.
So
what
released
was
this
test
added
in?
What's
the
description,
the
human
readable
description
of
what
this
test
does
stuff
like
that?
Okay
about
a
machine-readable
sanctums.
D
H
Is
one
of
the
things
we
were
looking
at?
What
API
snoop
was
actually
to
have
a
basically
like
a
web
site
to
go
to
where
you
have
each
of
the
api's
and
their
history
when
they
were
added
when
they
were
primitive
informants
and
what
applications
within
the
kubernetes
test
hit
them,
since
we
know
their
user
agents
and
eventually
what
applications
in
the
community
are
hitting
them
that's
of
interest.
E
Okay,
yeah
and
that's
more
information
than
we
have
right
now
and
as
I
would,
I
think
we
need
to
consider
who's
going
to
consume
the
information
like
who
the
audiences.
If
there's,
if
there
is
anything
that
is
actually
checked
into
the
repo,
I
think
it
should
be
relatively
straightforward
to
get
it
added
the
release
bundle
because
we
copy
a
bunch
of
other
files
from
the
release
bundle
at
some
point
we
used
to
include
the
whole
source
tree.
E
I
don't
know
if
we
are
still
doing
that
now,
but
one
thing
that
I
think
would
be
straightforward
to
do
at
least
which
I
requested
recently
and
I
just
put
a
link
to
that
when
the
notes
and
in
the
chat
is
for
anybody
who
is
reviewing
changes
to
the
conformance.
Just
ask
the
author
of
the
PR
to
include
a
release.
Note
that
should
be
a
relatively
straightforward
thing
that
we
can
do.
E
That
was
probably
of
interest
to
some
set
of
people,
but
the
release
notes
in
my
mind,
are
the
places
where
you
know:
cluster
administrators
and
people
building
clusters
and
kubernetes
providers
as
well.
As
you
know,
end-users
should
look
for
well
what?
What
has
changed
that's
relevant
to
me
in
this
release
and
we
might
want
to
think
about
breaking
down
the
release
notes
by
audience.
That's
a
lot
more
work,
but
at
least
for
now
there
aren't
too
many
of
these
changes
like
and
said
that
are
like
and
they're
coming
released,
or
something
like
that.
B
E
I
on
the
skipping
I
actually
commented
on
this
somewhere
as
well
or
maybe
I
filed
an
issue.
We
have
a
relatively
small
number
of
skip
directives
in
the
test
framework.
I
think
when
a
test
is
labeled
conformance,
we
should
just
set
a
global
variable
and
if
that
thing
is
set
when
and
skip
has
invoked,
it
should
just
crash
like
we
should
not
allow
skip
to
be
invoked
during
the
conformance
test.
I.
Are
you.
D
E
E
E
E
A
Some
confusion
in
the
appropriate
regular
expression
to
be
used
in
executing.
Maybe
we
can
hammer
this
out
as
we
hammer
out
the
test
image
dims,
because
I
felt
like
at
one
point
in
time.
We
discovered
that
sauna
boy
was
using
a
skip,
regular
expression
that
included
words
like
alpha
coupe,
CTL
feature
whatever,
and
you
and
I
have
been
trying
to
reduce
the
deltas
so
that
all
you
have
to
do
is
focus
on
conformance.
That's
it.
That's
it
full
stop,
and
it
should
be
really
easy
to
generate
the
list
of
tests
from
that
right.
D
D
C
B
G
Guess
I'd
be
me
so
my
goal:
we
just
want
to
request
it
a
50-minute
session
as
a
combined
session
I
think
it's
more
valuable.
My
idea
was
that
we
spend
kind
of
a
short
amount
of
time
giving
it
intro
to
anyone
new,
but
then
really
actually
a
focus
on
making
progress
on
tasks
that
we
have
cause
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
value
of
us
actually
being
it.
So
we
got
in
mind.
I
am
collecting
topics.
G
Well,
maybe
I'll
put
out
a
call
and
see
actually
he'll
be
there,
so
we
can
gauge
on
how
useful
will
be
and
if
there's
critical
mass
like
a
good
next
step.
Yes,.
E
D
E
We
already
do
for
things
like
that.
I,
please,
everybody
take
a
look
at
that
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
next
time
and
follow
up
on
the
mailing
list.
If
you
find
anything
interesting
with
respect
to
that
this,
with
respect
to
the
SQLite
thing,
that
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
said
we
need
to
cover
all
sed
dependent,
behaviors
and
the
conformance
tests.
We
also
have
the
cosmos
DB
implementation
by
Microsoft
all
right
people.
E
People
are
starting
to
swap
this
out,
so
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
the
semantics
we
expect
to
be
respected
are
actually
implemented
and
covered
by
the
conformance
test,
because
workload
portability
is
one
of
the
goals
but
ecosystem
tool.
Portability
like
which
you
know
there
are
literally
hundreds
of
operators.
Now
you
need
to
make
sure
that
those
things
just
work
so
with
respect
to
the
other
things
that
are
moved.