►
From YouTube: CDEvents Working Group (EMEA/APAC) - June 5, 2023
Description
For more Continuous Delivery Foundation content, check out our blog: https://cd.foundation/blog/
A
Yeah,
quite
quite
good,
we're
actually
in
a
it's
kind
of
a
long
week,
and
tomorrow
is
the
day
off
in
Sweden.
It's
a
national
holiday
national
day.
So.
B
A
B
B
Okay,
oh
yeah,
signing
in.
C
B
Events
working
group,
okay,
action
item
from
last
time,
your
nomination
and
its
nomination
for
TLC
so
just
put
the
link
there
to
the
issue
with
your
elimination.
So
thanks
for
doing
that,
and
good
luck.
B
A
B
A
B
Yeah
Alan
a
screwdriver.
A
B
All
right,
well
again,
good
luck
to
it's
uml,
hopefully
see
the
event
will
be
represented
there.
If
not,
we
still
left
like
project
Representatives
our
own
projects
on
the
TSC,
but.
B
C
B
The
roadmap
today,
which
is
not
done
yet,
and
finally,
this
is
everything
in
the
entire
city
event
organization,
that
is
not,
that
is
a
label,
and
that
is
not
labeled
for.
C
A
A
B
Okay,
so,
starting
with
the
first
list,
just
to
review
what
we
have
today,
so
the
abbreviations
for
all
events-
type,
it's
I,
think
still
a
good
thing
to
add.
So
hopefully
we
can
do
it
in
zero.
Four
yeah.
A
A
I'm
a
bit
uncertain
about
the
connecting
events,
which
should
be
the
main
thing,
I
think
I'm
a
bit
concerned
to
how
how
soon
we
can
assume
that
it
would
be
done.
A
Probably
not
the
next
coming
weeks.
Anyway,
it's
about
vacations
and
such
summer
plans
for
people
so.
A
B
With
events,
so
there
is
the
affidae
Minnesota,
which
is
September
the
18th
yeah.
So
maybe
we
could
try
and
like
release
the
week
before
that.
So.
C
B
We
can
announce
it
there
and
that
gives
us
like
June
July
August,
which
is
quite
some
time,
but
there
are
holidays,
like
you
said
in
the
middle,
so
it's
but
hopefully
there
is
enough
time
to
to
get
the
connecting
events
a
bit
yeah.
Why
not
true
I
mean
unless
some
someone
comes
up?
Something
else
comes
up
in
the
meanwhile
and
say:
okay.
Well,
we
have
this
feature.
We
would
really
like
to
get
into
a
release.
A
B
B
C
B
A
B
Those
and
as
we
maybe
have
some
some
more
done
on
visualizing
events
or
storing
events,
you
know
some
Central
Storage,
maybe
to
benefit
from
from
that
yeah.
So
the
other,
the
other
thing,
but
it
depends
how
it
goes,
but
there
there
is
some
work
that
we're
starting
and
it's
Registries
like
Harbor,
for
instance,.
B
To
produce
events
there,
so
the
initial
proof
of
concept
I
did
with
the
registry
from
Azure.
C
B
I
would
be
happy
to
if
we
have
like
support
native
support
for
City
events
in
harbors.
B
B
A
B
So
document
generally
required
feature
for
SDK.
At
least
I
wanted
to
do
it
for
zero
three
I
didn't
manage
to,
but
it's
definitely
keep
it
in
there.
B
And
the
last
one,
it's
still
again
the
same
so
I
think
that's
it
for
this
table.
B
Okay,
then,
we
have
here
update
existing
pocs
to
CD
band
zero.
One.
A
We
haven't
seen
this
set
if
we
need
to
have
the
box
go
aligned
with
the
releases
I.
Think
I
think
we
said
that
we
shouldn't
delay
the
releases
due
to
the
Box
not
being
updated,
but
we
should
of
course,
try
to
update
it
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
release,
yeah,
so
I
guess
now
we
should
aim
for
it.
It's
not
part
of
the
zeroth
forward
release,
but
we
should
aim
for
updating
it
to
zero
three
right,
yeah.
B
B
A
B
Okay,
so
Define
groups
of
subjects
that
share
common
predicates.
C
A
B
But
yeah
it's
a
nice
idea.
Maybe
but
I
don't
see
any
direct
benefit
in
doing
that
right
now,
so
I
wouldn't
put
it
in
the.
A
C
B
Least
for
artifact,
we
have
defined
it
better
defined
that
we
are
going
to
use
Pearl.
A
B
For
other
subjects,
I
think
the
source
is
yeah,
it's
very
it.
A
B
A
A
B
A
So
this
is
probably
not
sorted
out,
but
this
is
one
of
the
arrows,
which
is
a
bit
fussy
today
in
the
spec.
How
do
you
handle
these
values.
A
C
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
B
A
A
B
C
A
B
Okay,
so
this
is
something
we're
done
a
bit
so
in
the
at
least
in
the
go
SDK.
A
B
B
B
B
A
So
if
it's
about
distance
logic
as
well,
maybe
then
it's
somehow
related
to
the
evidence
door
ticket
right
as
well,
which
we
also
have
some
kind
of
business
Logic
on
it
already
store,
like
combined
data
from
events,
if
I
understood
that
one
correctly.
B
Yes,
I
think
there
is
a
slight
difference
between
the
the
events
store
where
you
store
the
events
and
then
you
can
use
the
storage
to
something
that
I.
Don't
know,
polls
pulls
it
or
apply
some
logic,
and
then
you
can
trigger
other
things.
You
can
do
anything
really
from
from
there.
All
this
is,
which
is
more
like
directly
reacting
to
events,
maybe
having
a
a
local
cache
of
the
last
few
events
received.
B
So
it's
a
kind
of
different
but
I
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
if
that
if
this
pattern
is
actually
used
or
it's
more
I
think,
but
those
Fidelity
and
SAS
seems
to
be
looking
at
this
more
like
evidence,
store
type
of
event,
pattern.
B
A
B
A
C
B
Is
something
yeah
I
think
my
idea
was
for
more
like
something
that
let
me
see
foreign.
B
B
A
Subscribe
filtering
thing
or
rules
engine
on
top
of
the
broker,
then
I
guess.
B
C
A
B
B
An
artifact
published
here
you
could
get
into
the
evidence
store,
but
you
could
go
at
some
point
through
this
logic
and
say:
okay,
well,
this
artifact
checks
all
the
boxes.
So
it
comes
from
the
right
repository.
It
has
been
tested
with
all
the
required
tests.
He
gots
an
approval
from
person,
X
I,
don't
know
whatever
policies
you
define,
it
can
be
applied
to
the
evidence
store
and
then,
if
that
is
the
case,
it
can
send.
A
B
Yeah,
that's
what
I
was
suggesting
on
the
issue
and
I
think
yeah.
So
when
integrating
in
tools,
City
events
and
tools,
I
think
it's
some
tools
already
have
an
incoming
pipeline
or
coming
component,
but
other
don'ts,
I,
don't
and
I
guess.
My
question
was:
is
that
something
we
can
take
out
of
the
tools
and
make
like
a
generic
component
that
can
do
that,
but.
A
A
I
think,
as
I
said
in
before
that,
to
have
broker
as
one
input
to
the
the
policy
engine
and
have
the
evidence
store
as
another
one.
Maybe
you
can
then
either
trigger
on
Live,
Events
or
trigger
on
historical
events
in
some
way
or
you
can
re,
make
use
of
the
evidence
tool
when
triggering
online
events
or
so,
of
course,.
A
B
Would
say
yeah
rather
because
if
I
still
send
the
declarative
event,
then
I
would
still
need
then
to
have
some
logic
in
here
that
decides
what
to
do
based
on
that
event
right.
So,
if
I
have
like
a
generic
business
logic
component
here,
then
that
would
call
into
the
API
of
the
tool
whatever
it
is
to
actually
do
something.
A
Yeah
but
the
policy
could
also
output,
something
about
like
this
is
now
tested
enough
or
something
like
that,
which
is
a
statement,
declarative
statement
rather
than
an
imperative
command
to
do
something,
but
it
still
relies
on
multiple
inputs
because
there's
not
factors,
input
and
maybe
some
tests
results
on
something,
but
it's
still
a
good
output,
a
notification
in
form
of
a
City
events.
If
we
would
like
it
to
like
a
state
events,
notification.
A
B
Kind
of
you
know,
governance
type
of
events
or
like
policy
matched
type
of
event
or
something
we
don't
have
them
in
the
spec
I
mean
you
could
see
like
a
virtual
like
like
a
test
suit,
maybe
an
overarching
test
suit.
That
includes
everything
that
needs
to
be
checked,
but
it's
it's
not
necessarily
test.
Only
so.
A
So
we
now
have
some
certain
level
of
confidence
in
this
Source
range
and
we
can
declare
that
through
an
event
and
similar
for
an
artifact,
that's
intended
mostly
to
be
based
on
tests,
evaluations
then,
but
it
could
be
like
review
approvals
and
such
things
as
well,
and
it's
not
explicitly
related
to
just
one
one
test,
Suite
or
anything
like
that.
It
could
be
any
combination
of
tests
or
so
it's
a
standalone,
more
business
related
event.
I
would
say.
C
A
Case
we
could
maybe
think
about.
Having
like
a
policy
evaluation,
succeeded,
no,
not
succeeded,
finished
something
policy
evaluation
if
I
finished,
if
we
want
or
policy
evaluation
created,
no.
A
A
Not
sure
I
mean,
if
you
would,
if
we
call
it
police
evaluation
finished,
then
it
it
assumes
that
there
is
a
started
event
as
well.
I'm,
not
sure
we
we
want
to
handle
it
as
a
workflow
of
events
like
started
finished.
It's
rather
that
now
we
have
reached
a
certain
policy
definition
or
how
do
you
say
fulfilled
policy
fulfilled
Maybe.
A
A
A
To
me,
confidence
and
maturity
is
quite
similar,
so
either
or
that
will
make
it
more
similar
to
my
wife
had
lost
it.
They're,
not
sure
that
makes
sense
here,
but
maybe.
C
B
A
I
think
it
will
be
interesting
to
discuss
this
in
the
same
discussion
as
we
talk
about
the
evidence
or
evidence
doors
right.
Isn't
that
a
related
discussion
at
least.
C
A
B
Maybe
we
can
try
to
get
bright
and
Jerry
will
Jamie
someone
from
Fidelity
involved
in
these
and
yeah
they
they
they're
using
this
in
their
systems
today,
I
think,
okay,.
C
B
11
46
already
oh
yeah,
okay,
yeah
I,
think
this
is
very
useful.
So.
C
A
B
A
C
A
Subject
that
purple
so
yeah,
if
we
just
make
it
clearer
what
the
information
is
different
between
two
to
two
events
with
the
same
subject
and
what
information
is
the
same?
So
we
have
the
the
contents.
B
C
A
C
A
A
B
A
We
don't
have
it
so
I
think
maybe
the
same
here
right
I
just
want
to
rush
this
now,
but
I
just
want
to
well
I
see
this
as
a
potential
Improvement
for
the
not
at
least
for
the
readability,
maybe
for
more
reasons.
B
Oh
yeah,
in
that
sense
it
would
be
number
compatible.
No
I
was
thinking
if,
if
there
is
an
advantage,
not
my
consumer
point
of
view
and
consuming
these
type
of
events
or
like
when
you're
aggregating
events
or
buildings
and
kind
of
yeah,
yeah
crunching
the
data,
let's
say:
if
you
have
this
View,
it
makes
it
easier
or.
A
B
B
A
B
So
I'll
unmark
it
do
you
want
me
to
put
a
comment.
You.
A
B
A
A
B
Okay,
so
let's
leave
it
out
now
and
then
here:
how
can
we.
C
A
C
A
B
A
C
A
B
A
C
B
Yeah
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
see
any
arm
doing
that.
I,
don't
know
how
submission
process
works.
I
have
no
no
yeah
yeah,
okay,
so
link
two
examples.
B
Okay,
we
are
nice,
I
need
to
review
this
I
guess
we
are
over
time.
B
C
B
We
can
continue
this
next
time,
I
think
yeah.
It
was
really
good
exercise.
So
if
we
go
back
to
here
yeah
it
looks
a
bit
more.
B
B
Yes,
do
we
have
anything
planned
there?
Okay,.