►
From YouTube: 2023-06-15 Crossplane Community Meeting
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
Right:
okay,
all
right
everybody:
this
is
the
June
15th
2023,
crossbling
community,
meeting
Jared
won't
be
able
to
make
it
today,
so
I
will
be
running
the
meeting.
So
let
me
drop
the
link
to
the
agenda
documents
to
the
chat,
so
feel
free
to
add
any
other
issues
that
that
you
would
like
to
discuss
in
the
meeting.
So
let
me
also
share
my
screen.
A
Okay,
so,
let's
start
with
the
agenda
items,
so
we
have
some
recent
cross
plane
releases
and
we
basically
fixed
couple
of
issues
in
in
the
last
three
supported
branches
of
cross,
plane
and
shipped
cross
brain
112.2
and
a
set
of
page
releases
for
respective
branches
and
also
the
corresponding
versions
for
the
Upstream
cross.
Plane
Universe,
like
upbound,
cross,
plane
or
uxp,
is
also
shipped
by
upbound.
So
the
links
for
the
releases
are
here
so
I
don't
know.
A
If,
if
Philip
is
on
the
call,
maybe
we
can
give
some
more
updates
about
the
details.
I
think
he's
not
here
so
yeah,
otherwise
I
think
we
can
just
check
the
release
notes.
So
the
like
multiple
changes
in
this
page
release
is
like.
There
is
a
confusing
deprecation
message
in
related
to
like
the
application
of
the
controller
config
so
like
that.
That
message
is
like
improved
and
clarified
to
better,
like
Point
intent
and
also
highlights
like
what
is
really
being
deprecated.
A
There
are
some.
There
is
a
fix
for
composition,
validation,
about
schema
away
validations
and
also
there
is
a
security
fix
which
is
fixed
by
bumping
if
you
dependencies
to
to
like
get
the
fixes
or
from
the
like
dependencies.
So
this
is
the
like
cross
brain
release
and
we
have
the
next
release
plans
as
as,
like
date,
is
as
planned.
So
we
can
quickly
go
and
check
and
the
the
roadmap
and
go
over
to
the
like
road
map
items.
A
I,
don't
know
if
Nick
is
on
the
call.
If
he
wants
to
give
some
updates
on
composition,
functions
like
let
me
check,
I
think
he
is
not
on
the
call
so
basically
like
this
is
one
of
the
like
high
priority
items
that
we
are
working
on
and
Nick
identified
a
couple
of
issues
that
needs
to
be
resolved
before
promoting
composition,
functions,
which
is
a
highly
like
desired
feature.
A
And
here
you
can
see
like
the
like
open
issues,
and
some
of
them
are
not
even
issues
yet
they
could
just
be
fixed
with
some
PRS
I
guess
they
are
relatively
smaller
pieces.
But
these
are
you
can
like
track
the
progress
of
how
we
are
going
with
promoting
composition
functions
to
Beta,
so
this
is
it
I
know
if
Laura
is
on
the
call.
Otherwise,
I
can
also
talk
about
like
promoting,
observe,
only
resources.
A
So
recently
there
was
a
design
document
that
was
merged
for
ignoring
changes
on
a
cross-plane
managed
resource
and
the
API.
We
ended
up
with
this.
That
design
is
like
extending
the
management
policy
that
we
proposed
with
observe
only
design.
So
this
means
that,
like
one
of
the
like
biggest
items
that
we
would
like
to
see
before,
promoting
observable
resources
to
Beta
is
the
implementation
of
the
Nev
API.
We
we
call
it
as
like.
A
Policies
because,
like
you,
can
give
a
set
of
like
actions
as
as
a
management
policy
to
say
that
like
to
to
give
rights
or
or
permissions
for
cross-plane
to
interact
with
external
resources,
so,
like
the
previously
management
policy,
observe
only
will
become
as
like
managing
policy,
and
then
you
just
give
the
observe,
as
as
the
policy
and
otherwise
like
the
default.
Behavior
Etc
wouldn't
change.
So
the
state
here
is
like
the
design.
Pr
is
merged
and
slowly
started.
A
The
implementation
and
I
think
it's
also
here
and
also
like
the
discussions
around
end-to-end
integration
testing,
improving
the
testing
test
coverage.
Etc
is
still
going
on
like
there
is
that
proposal,
open
and
I
expect.
We
would
be
able
to
see
some
progress
there
and
one
last
thing
that
I
would
like
to
mention
is
like
this:
like
deletion
ordering
feature,
which
is
also
a
highly
requested
feature,
is
right
now
under
design.
A
We
are
targeting
to
release
it
in
the
next
cross
plane
release,
but
we
are
aiming
to
get
the
design
like
merged
before,
like
in
this
cross,
plane
release.
So
this
is
also
ongoing.
Yeah
I
think
these
are
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
highlight.
Are
there
anything
that
anybody
wants
to
talk
about
or
give
some
feedback.
B
I
think
I'd,
maybe
just
quickly
call
out
that
we
there
was
some
confusion
previously
around
kind
of
like
what
appeared
in
which
release
and
on
on
the
roadmap
board
and
we're
we're
switching
to
a
a
model
where
we're
not
showing
what
we're
working
on
in
a
specific
release.
B
But
rather
what
we
intend
to
ship
in
that
release
and
the
the
roadmap
links
have
been
updated
on
the
readme
file
Etc,
so
that
when
you
actually
come
to
to
the
roadmap
view,
it
will
show
the
info
panel
by
default,
where
we
reiterate
that
what
we're
listing
here
is,
you
know,
and
it's
also
not
a
guarantee,
it's
a
commitment
to
to
try
and
aim
to
release
something
in
a
specific
version,
but
we're
making
trying
to
make
sure
that
we're
clarifying
the
the
intent
of
what
appears
on
this
board.
A
Yeah,
absolutely
thanks
for
the
updates,
John.
A
Like
there
is
nothing
that
I
would
like
to
highlight
from
the
like
roadmap
items
or
like
individual
issues
in
the
this
board,
so
we
can
continue
with
the
provider
releases
and
Investments
so
on
the
outbound
sites.
I
think
there
are
a
set
of
providers
released
and
I
think.
More
importantly,
we
have
a
bigger
announcements
for
for
a
like
a
severe
issue
that
we
were
having
with
a
high
number
of
crds
so
John.
Do
you
also
want
to
like
give
the
update
there.
B
Sure
yeah,
so
on
Tuesday
we
released
the
the
official
provider
families
which
allowed,
which
basically
takes
for
our
big
monolithic
packages
that
we
had
for
AWS,
gcp
and
Azure,
and
it
breaks
it
down
into
to
smaller.
B
Logically,
grouped
providers
and
the
marketplace
also
received
some
updates
and
will
continue
to
receive
further
ux
enhancements
as
we
we,
you
know,
roll
out
more
updates
there,
but
you
can
now
selectively
install
only
the
the
packages
you
need
with
the
resources
and
there's
a
there's,
a
blog
post,
that's
listed
later
in
the
agenda
item
as
well,
where
it
talks
about
what
provider
families
are
and
there's
some
documentation
as
well,
that
that
shows
you
how
to
migrate
if
you're
running
the
the
monolithic
package
as
well.
B
So
so,
we
hope
folks
find
that
the
this
reduces
some
of
the
pressure
that
the
the
of
the
crd
scaling
issues
they've
had,
and
you
know
we're
we're
currently
focusing
specifically
on
on
improving
performance
around
our
providers
and
we,
you
know
continuing
on
that
mission.
We
already
have
our
next
major
project
that
we're
focusing
on
and
improving
it
further.
A
Cool
I
think
yeah.
We
encourage
everyone
in
the
community
to
try
them
out
like
even
they
were
like
announced
as
as
release
candidates
for
I
think
more
than
a
month,
and
we
were
getting
some
feedback
from
the
community
already
with
having
them
as
generally
available.
I
think
we
will
see
more
usage
and
we
will
hopefully
get
some
more
feedback
and
like
improve
if
there
are
any
gaps
that
we
missed:
cool,
I.
Think
for
the
like
Community
topics
and
questions.
A
So
basically,
there
are
like
the
blog
posts
and
like
around
family
providers.
There
are
also
a
couple
of
more
content.
That's
worth
checking
out.
So,
for
example,
I
think
this
is
from
Steven
talking
about
like
how
to
use
cross
plane
to
like
provision
an
invoke
AWS,
Lambda
functions.
I
think
it
was
a
recent
talks
about
like
how
can
how
you
can
build
some
useful
compositions
for
that.
A
A
We
decided
to
create
special
interest
group
channels
for
each
feature
and
also
we
are
planning
to
create
some
regular
calls
for
reviews
and
interested
parties
to
give
feedback,
and
we
can
discuss
the
details
and
show
the
progress
Etc
so
feel
free
to
like
check
these
channels
and
like
join
whichever
you
are
interested
in,
and
we
would
love
to
hear
your
feedback
around
like
the
way
that
we
are
going
in
the
implementation
or
design
of
that
specific
feature
and
also
like
feel
free,
like
join
the
meetings
and
also
use
this
as
a
chance
to
provide
synchronous
feedback
and
also
the
last
item
that
you
would
like
to
mention
is
like
a
coupon
code
for
code.
A
For
proposals
is
almost
closed.
So
we
encourage,
like
everyone
to
you,
know
or
remind
everyone
that
wants
to
post
a
proposal
like
the
deadline
is
I,
think
this
Sunday
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
Jared
for
feedback
on
your
ideas.
This
is
I,
think
put
here
by
Jared,
so
I'm
just
reading
it
yeah
I,
think
that's
all
before
we
go
into
individual
PRS.
So
there
is
only
one
which
is
added
by
myself
so
before
diving
into
the
details.
C
A
Okay,
I
think
we
can
continue
with
this.
Basically
I
think
Dan
is
not
on
the
call
if
I'm
not
drunk
so
so
we
are
already
discussing
this
with
Dan
on
the
pr
trying
to
get
some
alignments.
So
I
would
like
to
highlight
this
PR
to
get
some
more
eyes
on
it,
and
you
know
like
give
some
more
details
so
that
you
can
check
it
and
like
provide
some
feedback.
A
A
So
I
think
most
of
you
who,
like
you
know,
who
have
been
using
cross
plain
for
a
while,
should
be
familiar
with
the
error
that
says,
like
this
resource
is
controlled
by
another
revision
type
of
Errors,
so
I
I
have
made
some
investigation
and
tried
to
you
know,
come
up
with
a
proposal
that
will
that
will
like
improve
the
situation
there
so
before
diving
into
much
details
on
what
I
am
proposing.
A
I
would
like
to
give
a
quick
like
highlight
or
overview
on,
like
how
cross
play
package
manager,
and
especially
the
package
controller
and
package
revision.
Controller
is
working,
so
this
is
also
like
independent
of
The
Proposal
I
think
it
will
be
a
good
chance
to
like
to
discuss
or
learn
more
about
how
it's
working.
So
today
we
have
like
two
types
of
packages:
provider,
packages
and
composition,
configuration
packages
and
both
of
them
are
reconciled
by
the
same
controller
like
package
controller,
and
then
the
revisions
are
reconciled
by
package
revision.
A
So
what
I'm
talking
about
applies
for
both
providers
and
configuration
packages?
So
I
would
like
to
start
like
when
you
create
a
package.
Let's
say
provider,
hell
provider
package
V1.
What
happens
is
the
package
controller
goes
and
creates
a
package
revision
object
and
the
actual
logic
of
the
like
calling
the
package
parsing.
A
The
package
installing
it
Etc
is
all
done
after
this
stage,
but
what
happens
is
like
it
creates
a
provider
revision
with
a
some
like
hash
at
the
end
of
the
name
and
then
sets
the
package
image
like
this
is
like
a
abbreviated
version
of
a
package
name
like
V1
and
then,
if
like
in
the
default
mode,
it
sets
it's
active
like
unless
you
set
revision
activation
policy
to
something
else.
A
So
what
happens
is
like
this
package
is
pulled
and
the
resources
inside
this
package
is
created
in
this
case,
like
in
provider
hell,
there
is
only
a
single
custom
resource
definition.
Actually,
configs
are
there
as
well,
but
it
doesn't
matter
to
get
into
that
details
and
what
happens
is
like
on
this
custom
resource
definitions.
We
are
setting
two
different
Alternatives.
One
is
for
provider
package
like
the
high
level
package,
and
the
other
is
for
the
revision.
But
the
important
point
is
like
the
revision
or
the
active
revision
takes
control
of
the
custom
resource
definition.
A
So
we
see
that
this
is
controller
equals
true.
So
this
is
like
the
first
installation.
What
happens
when
you
go
and
updates
to
V2?
Is
the
package
controller
goes
and
creates
another
package
region
sv2,
and
it
sets
it
as
active
and
it
deactivates
the
other
one.
So
this
is
what
happens,
and
now
these
two
provide
the
division.
Objects
are
reconciled
independently
and
the
inactive
one
goes
and
sets
the
controller
to
false
for
itself,
and
this
active
one
goes
and
edits
itself
as
an
owner
and
sets
the
controller
true.
A
True
one
back
to
controller
pulse.
If
there
is
something
goes
wrong
at
this
stage,
then
what
happens
is
like
this
stuck
is
true,
and
this
package
revision
fails
to
set
the
controller
through,
because
cross
kubernetes
does
not
allow
more
than
one
owner
as
control,
so
it
rejects
it's
controlled
by
another
provider
revision.
A
So
the
question,
then,
is
what
could
go
wrong
while
reconciling
and
inactive
provider
revision,
so
I
I've
investigated
the
reconcile
logic,
and
this
is
basically
like
what
is
happening
while
reconciling
a
provider
package
revision
today.
So
if
like
first
check
is
like,
of
course,
if
it
is
deleted,
if
not,
then
it
pulls
the
package,
if
not
cached
it.
A
This
means
like
if
it's
not
active,
deleting
the
deployment
and
service
account
and
service
and
then
the
like
most
important
step
comes
in,
which
is
actually
establishing
meaning
that
installing
or
creating
or
applying
to
crds
with
proper
owner
references-
and
here
we
see
branches
like
if
it
is
active,
it
is
like
created
and
updated
as
controller
set
through
and
if
it
is
inactive,
it
is
set
as
controller
false.
So
this
is
the
established
step
and
after
the
establishment
is
done,
the
next
step
is
like
setting
object.
A
References
to
status,
VC
status,
start
object,
graphs,
and
we
see
all
the
objects
listed
for
this
specific
provider
revision.
The
last
step
is
running
positive,
establish,
Hooks
and
right
now
we
only
have
like
creating
the
provider
deployments
as
post
book
and
deleting
it
as
a
pre-book,
and
this
is
only
for
providers,
not
configuration
packages.
A
B
A
That
the
old
provided
revision
cannot
like
give
the
control
or
or
stop
controlling
the
objects,
and
then,
if,
in
this
case,
in
this
situation,
if
the
active
controller
tries
to
control
it,
it
fails
because
it's
still
controlled
by
all
tradition.
This
is
one
case,
but
could
go
wrong
and
I
think
there
is
exactly
an
issue
for
this.
A
If
I'm
not
mistaken
yeah.
This
is
like
complaining
about.
We
are
still
fetching
like
package
for
all
three
visions
kind
of
issue,
so
this
is
one
thing
and
also
like
on
the
next
steps.
For
example,
we
had
another
issue
reported
by
I
think
Christopher.
There.
A
There
was
an
issue
with
like
cross-plane
contract
constraint,
checks
and
the
old
revision
fails
at
this
stage,
meaning
that
it
cannot
come
down
to
this
point
and
leave
the
control
of
the
resources,
and
so
like
resolving
dependencies
like
there
could
be
some
issues
ETC.
So
what
I'm
proposing
here
is
like,
instead
of
this
flow
I'm,
proposing
to
basically.
A
If
the
revision
is
active
or
not
like,
instead
of
having
branches
at
later
stages,
I'm
proposing
to
Branch
as
soon
as
possible,
and
if
the
revision
is
not
active,
just
like
collect
all
the
logic
for
deactivation
and
do
it
and
then,
if
deleted,
just
delete,
so
also
it's
it's
also
an
important
point
to
mention
like
here.
We
don't
have
a
deactivation
Logic
on
the
delete
path.
So
if
you
delete
a
provider
religion
and
if
it
disappears
before
it
is
like
gives,
the
control
leaves
the
control.
A
Then
you
are
very
likely
to
hit
the
issue
of
the
famous
like
controller
object,
controlled
by
another
division.
So
this
is
like
putting
it
on
the
deletion
pad
and
putting
it.
You
know
like
collecting
all
the
deactivation
logic
together
and
not
including
like
package
pulling
parsing
and
all
other
steps.
So
one
thing
that
definitely
worth
mentioning
I
think
it's.
It's
definitely
like
understandable,
like
why
it's
implemented
in
that
way.
A
In
the
first
case,
Etc
is,
if
you
are
going
in
this
path,
then
the
question
is
like:
how
do
you
know
the
content
of
the
resource
like
package
so
that
you
can
go
and
Set
controller
as
false,
so
I
think
this?
The
primary
motivation
for
that
is
like
even
the
package
revision
is
inactive.
Let's
pull
it
check
its
content
and
then
go
and
set
controller
false
for
all
of
those
objects.
So
this
is
like
how
it
was
implemented
in
the
first
place,
but
now
I
believe
it
references.
We
have.
A
We
can
change
that
implementation
and
instead
we
can,
just
you
know,
use
those
references
they
are
now
in
under
status,
like
status,
dot,
object
references,
so
there
are
some
like
concerns
around
keeping
a
state
under
status,
especially
like
in
the
past.
We
had
some
issues
with
like
Valero
Etc,
so
there
could
be
still
some
like
tweaks
or
discussions
around
whether
we
should
move
them
to
spec
or
if
it
is
understood
if
the
status
is
lost.
Just
in
this
case
like
run
through
these
steps
Etc.
A
So
there
are
some
other
discussions
to
to
to
be
made
there.
But
overall
the
idea
is
like
collecting
to
the
the
activation
logic
together
and
then
having
it
as
a
as
an
independent
part
of
like
pulling
parsing
and
installing
objects.
So
yeah,
that's
actually
the
thing
that
I
I
want
to
get
some
more
I
ice
on,
so
the
pr
is
open
and
feel
free
to
like
join
the
discussion
here,
contribute
with
your
feedback
and
also
are
there
any
questions
around
this
or
comments
or
feedback
right
now.
C
Okay,
let
me
check
I
yeah
I
got
they
got.
I
was
thinking,
maybe
a
dumb
question,
or
at
the
top
you
said
that
the
controller
ref,
the
first
one
on
the
crd
is
provider,
but
that
matches
that
is
always
false.
Something
about
that
always
matches
the
package.
I
didn't
follow
that
the
first
one.
A
Yeah,
that
is
always
for
the
like,
not
provider,
sorry
it's!
It
should
be
like
in
this
context.
The
the
confusion
is
coming
from
I'm
talking
about
package
but
then
I'm,
giving
a
provider
as
an
example.
But
if
this
was
a
configuration
package,
then
this
would
be
the
configuration.
A
A
A
Configure
operation
revisions,
so
then
this
this
would
look
like
this
if
I
can
change
it,
so
both
providers
and
configurations
are
packages
from
like
cross-plane
point
of
view
and
they
have
a
shared
controllers.
So
both
configuration
packages
and
provided
packages
are
reconciled
using
either
package,
see
consider
or
package
revision
cons
from
reconciliation.
A
C
Thank
you
sure
is
any
of
this
design,
docs
or
diagrams
available
somewhere.
A
A
Yeah
but
I
I,
like
I
I,
got
this
feedback
from
I.
Think
peotre
as
well
as
you
were
discussing
before,
and
if,
like
the
whether
it
is
my
proposal
is
accepted
or
not,
no
matter
how
it
lands.
I'm
planning
to
put
these
like
reconcile
logic
somewhere
available
for
others
as
well,
but
for
now
I
think
I
I
already
put
it
here
like
in
the
yeah.
You.
A
A
Sure,
okay
I
think
we
are,
we
went
through
the
agenda
and
the
last
part
is
optional
time
for
deeper
technical
discussions.
Are
there
anything
else
that
anybody
wants
to
discuss.