►
From YouTube: 2019-09-17 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
Okay,
the
recording
has
started-
and
this
is
the
September
17th
2019
crossplane
community
meeting.
The
big
focus
for
today
will
be
on
the
0.3
release
that
we
are
intending
to
go
ahead
and
release
and
make
public
tomorrow
morning
Wednesday
morning
Pacific.
So
we
have
a
number
winding
down
and
we
have
a
number
of
things
to
wrap
up.
So
this
most
of
the
majority.
A
A
We're
gonna
need
a
better
solution
for
that.
Probably
the
Zen
hub
experience
that
we
started
using
in
not
bound,
but
we
are
making
that
as
the
public
way
to
track
issues
as
well.
So
we
can
track
issues
across
multiple
repositories
so
that
the
issues
will
live
near
the
code,
but
we
could
get
a
role
in
the
summary
view
as
well.
A
All
right,
so
I
took
a
pass
through
the
project
board
this
morning.
Basically,
every
single
thing
on
here
is
about
the
docs
user
guides
examples,
blog
posts,
testing
verification,
all
that
sort
of
stuff
there.
So
all
those
you
know
wrapping
up
the
quality
of
the
release
and
getting
the
user
facing
documentation.
Stuff
is
basically
every
single
thing.
That's
tracked
on
this
board
here.
If
there
are
I,
do
have
a
couple
of
other
issues.
A
A
couple
like
a
two
I
think
that
I
added
to
the
agenda
to
talk
through
as
well,
but
basically
the
board
is
all
about
the
wrapping
up
the
things
left
in
this
release,
so
one
thing
I
wanted
to
ask
about
and
I,
don't
think
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
think
Nick
is
gonna,
be
able
to
join
us,
but
there's
this
particular
issue
here,
that's
sitting
in
review
and
move
the
zoom
thing
out
of
the
way
get
off
this
monitor.
Please
it's
sitting
in
review,
but
I
don't
see
an
open
pull
request
for
it.
B
A
C
I
think
I
don't
think
it
was
in
the
milestone.
I
think
the
reason
why
the
opened
this
up
was
because
in
creating
managed
resources
for
updating
your
managed
resource,
so
we
really
didn't
know
like
how
far
we're
going
to
cover
updating
different
fields,
for
example,
for
a
V
PC
or
like
something
it
has
other
come
like
a
fields
in
it,
I
mean
we
were
in
comics
sure
how
much
we
worked
on
say.
C
These
are
not
me
double
feels
or
these
are
because,
if
it
feel
is
mutable,
you
should
be
able
to
technically
support
by
changing
it
in
the
cross
plane.
It
should
crisp
awning
Lee
comeback,
update
the
external
resources
too,
so
I
think
I
brought
this
up
and
then
I.
As
far
as
I
know,
this
is
for
the
next
release.
That's
for
v3.
A
Okay:
let's
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
what's
left
for
0.3,
so
the
top
of
mind
for
me
is
the
services
guides
and
stacks
guides,
so
Phil
you're
on
the
call
and
then
suss
can
join
the
call
to
do
Phil.
Do
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
talk
about?
You
know
what
the
the
in
game
plan
here
is
for
the
services
guide.
D
Yeah,
so
service
is
kind.
We
basically
have
PR
793
open
for
the
overview
and
it
comes
along
with
a
lot
of
Tayla.
Look
at
NAB
table
of
contents
updates,
as
well
as
a
new
Welcome,
page
developer,
guide,
page
API,
placeholder,
page
and
so
forth,
but
I
feel
really
good
with
where
those
reviews
at
and
then
I
know
that
Dan
and
I
move
off
until
I
have
all
MPR's
for
the
cloud
specific
guides,
and
so
I
proposed
landing.
D
B
D
Also,
getting
that
on
master
would
allow
us
to
kind
of
fan
out
a
little
bit
more
and
kind
of
just
you
know,
submit
smaller
bug,
fix
PRS
for
the
remainder
of
the
day.
Instead
of
trying
to
do
it
and
one
big,
you
know
massive
PR,
so
if
we
could
land
793
and
then
do
quick
follow-ons
for
I,
think
it's
dance
at
PR,
800
and
then
move
effects
and
Jevons,
then
if
we
could
get
those
all
the
way
into
the
next
hour,
I
think
that
that
would
be
ideal.
D
So
what
that
might
look
like
is
doing
kind
of
pure
review.
You
know
trading
peer
reviews,
for
you
know
your
your
PR,
and
so
that
would
help
but
kind
of
expedite
that
so
we
could
effectively
pair
up.
So,
for
example,
like
you
know
again,
you
could
review
you
know
like
Javad,
xand
I
could
review
move
off,
X
and
move
off
future
you,
my
and
so
forth
right.
D
A
Just
to
summarize
in
so
the
proposal
here
would
be
to
sue
in
the
very
short
term
merged
this
overall
services
guide,
793,
equal
request
on
my
screen
to
master
and
then
after
that,
follow
on
quickly
with
doing
quick,
final
reviews
for
the
individual
cloud
provider
service
guides
and
get
that
all
into
master.
And
then,
since
its
consolidated
in
a
single
place,
then
it'd
be
easier
and
more
efficient
to
to
iterate
or
to
fix
lingering
issues.
There
fix
links
like
all
that
sort
of
stuff
in
one
single
consolidated
place,
yeah.
D
I
mean
the
main
thing
there
as
well
as
it
has
so.
The
services
guide
is
solid
in
my
view,
and
then
the
new
structure
is
really
kind
of
what's
important
to
get
out
there
so
that
people
can
kind
of
you
know,
add
their
index,
links
and
stuff
like
that
in
there,
and
we
can
kind
of
reorganize
stuff
as
a
team
as
needed,
structured.
A
Got
it
cool,
okay,
and
that's
that
sounds
reasonable
to
me.
Is
there
anyone
that
knows
of
any
large
outstanding
feedback
that
it
would
be
blocking
or
needs
to
be
incorporated
into
this
services
guide,
PR
793
before
we
go
ahead
and
merge
it
into
master
the
continue
iterating
of
with
smaller
pr's
follow-up?
Yours.
E
A
You
uh-huh
scan,
really,
you
do
you
think
you'll
be
able
to
take
a
pass
or
put
an
approval
on
it.
Cuz
I,
don't
think
it
has
an
approval
yet
yeah
it
doesn't
hasn't
gotten
under
protocol,
so
it
needs
one
anyways
be
able
to
take
your
pass
in
the
within
the
next
like
hour
after
this
meeting
is
wrapped
up
yeah.
F
F
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
like
go
down
this
full
path,
but
essentially
so,
like
the
different
services,
guys
like
Daniels,
given
reviews
to
all
of
them,
which
has
been
super
helpful.
So
thank
you
for
that.
But,
like
I
know
this
this
morning,
that
I
went
through
and
addressed
a
bunch
of
comments
and
then,
like
juvik
services
guide,
was
in
the
same
structure
as
mine,
and
then
he
had
some
of
different
differing
opinions
on
some
of
the
comments
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned.
I
guess
about
the
like.
F
Maybe
some
difference
in
style
between
the
different
services
guides,
as
well
as
these
services
and
Stax
guide.
But
that
might
be
something
where,
as
Daniels
saying
like
it's
emerge,
and
then
someone
is
kind
of
like
responsible
for
any
of
that
kind
of
like
convergence.
So
I
don't
know
what
that
process
will
look
like,
but
I
just
wanted
to
raise
awareness
that
there
is
probably
some
stylistic
differences
and
some
of
that's
obviously
related
to
the
service,
the
provider
being
used,
but
I
I
just
wanted.
Everyone
be
cognizant
of
that.
Yeah.
A
Thanks
for
bringing
it
up,
Dan,
that's
a
that's
a
good
point
and
I
think
that
that
does
you
know
like
go,
go
along
nicely
with
what
Phil's
suggestion
was
here
and
is
that
getting
them
all
into
you
know,
master
and
having
being
able
to
iterate
all
of
them
in
a
single
PR
afterwards.
After
have
you
know,
instead
of
making
individual,
you
know,
feedback
requests
on
each
one
of
the
PRS
having
somebody
go
through
and
do
that
convergence
pass
to
you
know,
bring
them
all
into
consistent
tone
or
experience.
C
Mentioned
that
for
for
as
for
AWS
services,
guy
I'm
I'm
working
on
it,
it's
a
draft
I
have
it
I
have
a
demo
starting
a
after
this
meeting,
and
then
after
that,
I'm
gonna
be
continued
working
and
that
I'm
guessing
this
company
John
and
ready
for
review
around
like
1
or
2
p.m.
so
that's
all
of
it.
Coming
along
later,
as
I
was
working
on
that
guide
for
a
couple
yachts,
just
the
head
stuff,
for
you
guys,
you
know
the
static
guide
is
ready
and
I
send
it
across.
A
E
Yeah,
so
it's
similar,
we
have
all
of
them
in
review
now.
The
one
that
is
farthest
along
I
believe
is
the
overall
guide
and
the
GCP
one
just
since
we've
had
longer
to
to
iterate
on
that.
What
I'm
thinking
at
this
point
is
that
we
have
two
main
pieces
of
work
left
for
the
Stax
guide.
One
is
getting
the
tone
and
structure
to
be
consistent
across
all
of
them
and
the
other
one
is
testing
them
to
make
sure
that
they
actually
work
and
any
edits
based
on
that.
E
So
I
also
am
generally
for
merging
and
then
testing
and
refining
after
that,
so
I
I
think
we
could
probably
merge
the
overall
one
and
the
GCP
one
and
then
refine
it.
And
then
I
haven't
taken
a
look
at
the
azure
one,
since
the
feedback
was
responded
to
and
then
I
need
to
review,
PA
WS
on
to
but
yeah
in
general
I'm,
definitely
for
smaller
iterations
and
find
what
they're
finding
things
after
they
merged.
A
D
Just
one
comment
so
I
think
I'm
in
total
agreement
with
what's
being
said
here,
but
in
terms
of,
like
stylistic,
differences,
I,
think
landing.
What
we
have
and
then
kind
of
having
a
follow-on
conversation
around
how
to
make
this
dialect.
Just
differences
kind
of
become
more
consistent,
I
would
I
would
definitely
do
prioritize
kind
of
you
know
getting
the
styling
stylistic
stuff
ironed
out,
as
opposed
to
making
sure
that
the
examples
actually
work,
and
so
I
know
that
everybody's
probably
individually
gone
through.
D
A
Cool
alright,
so
it
sounds
like
we
have
plans,
then,
for
making
progress
or
converging
on
these
services
and
the
Stax
guides.
So
we've
got
a
lot
of
the
team's
focus
on
that
now
and
we're
gonna
keep
pushing
on
that
through
the
day
here
to
get
those
in
a
good
shape
as
soon
as
possible.
The
developer
guide
here,
I,
don't
see
Nick
on
line
right
now,
so
we'll
need
to
sync
up
with
with
Nick
on
where
that
developer
guide
is
or
how
we're
going
to
expose
it
in
the
0.3
release,
because
I
died.
A
My
feeling
is
that
it's
not
gonna
be
like
a
completely
fully
fleshed
out
deep
document.
I
know
Nick
is
some
progress
on
like
guidance
around
writing
controllers
and
such
and
he'll
be
leaning
on
the
more
general
stack
authorship
guidance
that
we're
writing,
but
in
terms
of
how
do
we
want
to
expose
this
in
the
table
of
contents
or
in
the
0.3
branch
or
links?
Excuse
me
a
link
to
master
etc.
We
need
to
follow
up
and
get
that
settled
that
out.
So
that's
still
remaining
and.
D
F
D
A
Yeah
that
sounds
like
it
could
be
a
reasonable.
You
know
mitigation
or
thing
to
do
to
get
really
steered
out.
Three
Marcus
and
I
are
taking
the
charge
here
at
filling
out
the
remaining
stack
contents,
and
so
what
I
mean
by
that
like
for
each
one
of
these
stacks,
that
we
are
publishing
in
0.3
all
the
cloud
providers
in
the
wordpress
stack.
We
are
putting
icons
in
for
every
CRD,
we're
putting
in
all
the
metadata
like
the
overview
and
description,
and
you
know,
documentation
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff.
So.
A
All
the
content
for
the
stacks
now
and
that
should
be
done
today-
Marcus's
work
out
now
sure
right
now
in
probably
AWS
and
then
I
started
on
GCP
and
WordPress
will
be
very
quick.
So
that
looks
like
that's
in
good
shape,
but
it
is
a
focus
for
for
Marcus
and
I.
Today,
in
terms
of
the
manual
testing
class
seems
like.
That
is
definitely
something
that
we're
doing
as
part
of
our
guides.
A
Any
ways
of
you
know
writing
authoring
the
guides
walking
through
the
guides
testing
with
the
latest
code,
for
that
so
we're
doing
that
as
part
of
our
DOX
generation
or
authorship.
But
you
know
when
you
get
everything
landed
into
master
before
we
cut,
create
the
release,
branch
and
tag
the
release.
It
would
be
a
very
good
idea
to
just
do
another
final
sanding
walkthrough
to
make
sure
everything's
in
good
shape
and
there
weren't
any
integration
or
issues
or
regressions.
D
Have
a
draft
from
earlier
that
needs
to
be
revamped
and
slimmed
way
down.
Most
of
the
content
made
its
way
into
the
docs
on
one
form
another
when
we
were
kind
of
originally
posting
it
to
kind
of
announce
that
we
were
going
to
be
doing
all
this
work,
and
so
I'll
be
working
on
that
layers
afternoon
with
mocha.
D
A
So
you
know
in
0.2
we
did
not
have
release
automation,
so
we
ran
the
release
steps
manually
I
mean
we
have
automation
in
terms
of
the
make
file
and
build
some
module,
but
Jenkins
itself
does
not
do
their
release
automation,
so
we
will
be
the
planning
current
plan.
Right
now
is
to
do
the
same
thing,
but
w
did
40.2
where
we
will
run
the
release
outside
of
Jenkins.
But
you
know,
with
all
of
the
build
sub
module
make
file
scripts
the
same
thing.
A
That
Jenkins
would
do
we
just
don't
have
those
pipelines
created
and
tested
and
I
think
that
would
be
theirs.
That
would
not
be
the
best
option
going
forward.
I
think
is
to
is
to
do
exactly
what
we
did
for
that
which
works
for
us.
So
I
think
that
that's
the
plan
right
now
for
each
cloud
fighter
stack.
The
thinking
is
that
we'll
do
something
similar.
A
You
know,
build
all
that
sort
of
stuff
is
all
there
as
well.
So
we
got
that
for
for
free
from
the
sub
build
sub
module,
which
is
really
awesome,
so
we'll
basically
do
a
similar
release
process
that
we
do
for
core
crossplane
for
the
cloud
provider
stacks.
One
big
difference
is
that
promotion
you
know
is
something
to
think
about
a
little
bit
further
I'm,
not
sure
we
haven't.
A
The
alpha
channel
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
the
current
usage
of
the
cross
plane
home
chart,
but
the
aren't
home
charts
for
a
cloud
provider
stacks
that
are
their
own
thing.
That
is
the
release
vehicle
is
the
stack
itself.
The
stack
package
so
I
don't
think
about
not
doing
a
promotion
for
channels
right
now,
but
we
can
talk
through
that
and
things
like
that.
A
little
bit
more
I.
E
A
A
Let's,
let's
take
that
offline
and
think:
do
it
a
little
bit
more
because
I
don't
know
if
we
understand
the
implications
of
that,
but
because
we
don't
have
a
solid
process
around
this
right
now,
so
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
new
territory.
For
us,
let's
looks
like
maybe
sync
up
and
thanks
do
it
a
little
bit
further
I'm
not
super
against
it,
but
I
just
I,
don't
have
have
it
all
figured
out
in
my
head
of
how
that
would
work,
cool.
A
A
F
F
F
A
D
Thumb
yeah:
why
don't
we
bring
up
625
issue
625
and
that
basically
is
the
overarching
and
then
that
will
have
virtually
out
of
the
links
for
all
of
those
things
and
so
just
to
kind
of
recap,
down
there
and
they're
related,
so
I
believe
updating
the
gitlab
stuff
is
actually
now
moved
out
of
here
into
view
0.4
as
a
separate
top-level
issue,
and
so
that's
out
of
scope.
Okay,
apparently,
and
if
you
hover
over
these
things
so
with
the
QuickStart
guide
yeah.
So
that's
basically
in
flight.
That's
what
I'm
working
on
right
now!
D
That's
p1,
but
it
would
be
really
nice
to
get
this
in,
and
so,
if
someone
has
some
cycles
later
today
after
we
land
everything
else,
refreshing
the
QuickStart
guide
to
do
like
a
non
secure
connectivity
example
of
just
dynamic
claim
provisioning,
maybe
like
taking
you
in
the
services
guides
and
slimming
them
down
or
revamping
the
existing
WordPress
examples
and
bitching.
The
good
luck,
I'll
have
example
from
that
guide.
D
Until
we
get
a
you
know,
refactored
or
whatever
most
of
the
content
is
still
good
there,
but
that's
something
that
would
be
nice
to
get
a
little
help
with,
even
though
it's
a
p1,
so
I
don't
know
if
anybody
feels
like
it
might
have
bandwidth
for
that.
But
I
mean
if
we
go
to
781
and
just
drill
them
to
781.
There's
a
checklist
in
there.
I
was
sorry
yeah.
So.
B
D
Other
but
781
up
at
the
top,
so
the
checklist
in
here,
if
we
just
kind
of
go
down
so
the
Welcome
page,
has
an
update.
Quick
Start
Guide
stays
the
same
unless
we
do
it
in
triple7.
Getting
started
basically
has
been
removed
and
replaced
with
the
services
guide
and
the
Stax
guide
and
I'll
take
the
PR
feedback
on
793
dan
to
rename.
D
So
the
current
deploy
that
MD
content
is
part
of
that
refresh,
though
we
kind
of
want
to
remove
that,
and
then
we
can
go
and
tick.
Those
boxes
off
running
resources
probably
needs
an
update,
and
so
that's
kind
of
stole
an
open
issue.
The
concepts
is
something
I
ought
to
be
tackling
as
part
of
636
related
projects
could
probably
you
know,
be
skipped
if
necessary
and
then
the
CRD
reference.
We
need
to
basically
get
mixed
stuff
integrated
in
the
left-hand
nav
for
his
auto-generated
API.
D
So
that's
currently
like
yeah
standing
work
in
flight,
so
after
we
land
I
would
seem
to
make
sure
all
these.
These
boxes
get
ticked
and
I
can
go
through
and
start
tackling
that
and
then
you
know
call
out
for
help
where
needed.
So
basically
the
the
quick
start
would
be
something
that
would
be
a
great
item
if
people
have
time
otherwise,
we
could
potentially
just
believe
to
quick
start
and
not
evident
that
does
the
the.
F
Yeah
I'd
be
happy
to
help
with
the
QuickStart,
especially
if
we're
just
doing
some
sort
of
like
simple
example:
I
have
a
PR
that
I
think
we're
going
to
discuss
in
a
minute
as
it's
updating
all
the
examples
using
portable
classes,
which
is
like
those
are
examples
of
COI
starts.
Essentially
so
I'd
be
happy
to
collaborate
on
that.
Okay,.
A
B
F
A
Honestly,
at
this
point,
I
would
say
definitely
share
puns
on
this.
I
would
not
want
to
take
any
more
coaching
on
right
now
and
have
any
more
churn
going
in.
So
I
would
prefer
on
this,
because
it's
not
a
mainline
scenarios
for
our
guides.
It's
not
affected,
get
updated,
get
live
experience,
it's
not
and
scope
anymore.
Either.
I
would
not
take
any
more
code
changes
on.
Thank
you
for
volunteering
them.
B
B
A
Okay
and
then
renaming
the
github
organization,
we
were
able
to
secure
the
right
now
we
have
Crossman
and
io
as
the
organization,
because
crossplane
itself
was
already
taken,
but
we
were
able
to
secure
that.
So
we
have
it
in
our
possession
now
and
we
could
switch
over
Susskind
brought
up
a
very
good
point
that
this
is
a
risk
that
has
unknown
in
potentially
unknown
implications
that
might
not
have
a
very
easily
scoped
mitigations
and
workarounds
either.
You
know
there's
something
that
was
wrong,
that
we
do
that.
A
We
don't
expect
we
might
have
to
get
github
support
involved
or
something
so
in
connect
in
the
worst
case,
so
to
minimize
risk
here-
and
this
is
not
critical
for
0.34
the
release
it's
just
nice
to
have.
Everything
is
quite
functional
as
it
is.
I
did
then
I
agree
with
Susskind
proposal
that
this
not
be
handled
in
0.3
and
that
we
pushed
this
out
just
to
minimize
our
risk
here.
A
We
should
I
acknowledge
that
we
knew
about
this
like
27
days
ago,
and
it
did
not
handle
it
earlier
in
the
milestone,
and
so
that's
my
responsibility.
Then
I
shouldn't
have
handled
this
or
taking
care
of
this
earlier
in
the
milestones
so
that
we
would
have
had
it
done
and
we
could
have
handled
any
of
the
fallout
or
issues
that
cropped
up
with
it
during
the
milestone.
So
I
take
responsibility
for
that
and
I
apologize,
but
we
all
have
to
do
this
next
girls
to.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
listed
a
couple
of
PRS
here
that
are
in
flight.
We
kind
of
we
talked
through
793
I,
don't
think,
there's
more
to
bring
up
on
that.
One
I've
already
talked
through
that
one,
a
number
of
times
unless
feel
there's
any
more
lingering
things
you
want
to
bring
up.
Okay-
and
it's
just
gonna-
be
done.
We
talked
about
the
Stax
guide.
Is
there
you
will
bring
up
there.
E
E
Someone
look
at
it.
I
feel
like
I
got
some
comments
from
Dan,
which
I
need
to
reply
to
you
now,
but
I
was
hoping
to
either
have
someone
look
at
it
and
like
go
through
a
test
around
there.
Just
read
through
it
to
make
sure
I'm,
not
just
in
my
own
echo
chamber
here,
but
it's
okay.
If
we
don't
have
time
to
do
that,
so
that
would
that
be?
My
only
comment
that
if
someone
has
time
to
take
a
look
at
that
before
we
merge
it
and
refine
it
then
I'd
appreciate
that
yeah.
A
The
initial
pass
that
I
took
through
to
just
like
see
the
structure
of
it
see
the
style
read
through
some
of
the
content
not
follow
through
I
did
not
execute
the
commands,
but
you
know
read
through
most
of
it
all.
It
looked
very
high-quality,
looks
very
good,
so
I,
don't
at
this
point,
have
qualms
or
big
reservations
about
merging
it
into
master
soon
and
then
iterating
further,
as
we
you
know,
go
through
and
test
the
guides
and
go
to
the
manual
testing
process.
F
I
agree
and
my
comments
on
there
are
mostly
just
like
a
namespace
naming
conventions
that
we've
kind
of
been
like
circling
around
on
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
there
are
things
that
can
be
addressed
later,
they're,
more
stylistic
and
then
I'm
working
through
with
the
Azure
guide
right
now,
in
tandem
with
the
general
stacks
portion
of
it,
so
I'd
be
happy
to
put
an
approval
on
that
pretty
soon
here,
if
needed,
I.
C
Was
just
going
to
give
a
comment
on
name
spacing
and
other
things
I
think
you
guys
mentioned
this,
but
I'm
thinking
like
making
sure
all
of
those
are
coming
compatible
only
as
possible
after
all
of
them
are
coming
like
in
a
state
that
ready
to
go
and
and
after
that's
there's
check-ins
goes
through
and
looks
at
those
name
dismisses
everything's
kind
of
like
compatible
and
everything
I
think
that
will
be
easier.
So
we
shouldn't
be
worried
about
compatibility
and
that
level
much
at
this
point.
F
That
would
just
be
kind
of
ingrained
in
some
of
the
other
guys,
but
this
actually
shows
it
with
examples.
So
it
is
straight
that
so,
basically,
if
my
thought
process
is
that
they
can't
get
broken
anymore,
so
the
fact
that
they've
not
been
all
tested
is
not
a
major
concern
to
me
at
the
same
time.
This
is
not
something
that
we
said.
F
You
know
you
know,
we
we've
made
an
intentional
effort
in
the
services
and
specs
guide
to
provide
all
yamo
configuration
in
the
guide
that
you
can
just
catch
straight
to
a
file,
and
so
there's
a
couple
places
references
workload,
the
workload
examples
which
have
not
been
edited
so
I
left.
Those,
as
is
this,
is
just
the
simple
examples
with
individual
resources,
so
yeah
that
was
kind
of
my
thought
process.
A
This
completely
syntactically
broken
exactly
yeah.
Thank
you
very
much
for
taking
a
pass
to
this
to
get
it
to
a
more
up-to-date.
You
know
quality
level
in
functional
level.
The.
Where
did
we
stand
now
on
like
updating
or
deleting
or
cleaning
up
the
examples?
Folder
dude?
What's
the
latest
thinking
on
that,
we.
D
B
B
A
Cool
yeah
I'd,
be
I,
probably
be
partial
to
taking
this
change
soon.
Since
it's
you
know
a
great
stab
at
getting
them
sit
back
to
syntactically,
correct
and
then
you
know
figuring
out
which
ones
we
want
to
remove
or
which
ones
we
want
to
support
going
forward
after
0.3,
because
it's
only
effects
master
and
not
the
release.
Branch
really
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
So
that
sounds
good.
D
782
is
basically
what
you've
been
looking
for.
If
you
want
to
update
all
the
all
the
examples
as
far
as
issue,
that's
trapping
that
there
was
also
a
question
there
for
AWS
credits
and
GCP
creds,
and
if
we
need
those
scripts,
to--if
they're
only
forget
loud
and
then
if
we
need
one
Fraser
to
simplify
the
process.
For
that
so.
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
I
helped
him
out
gave
him
that
so,
when
he's
up
he'll
be
able
to
see
this
and
then
make
these
additions
as
well
to
get
the
documentation.
However,
we
want
to
into
the
table
of
contents
nope
yeah.
We
do
not
yet
just
be
clear
for
everybody
to
get
documentation
added
into
the
table
of
contents.
Here
there
is
no
change
necessary
on
the
website.
Html
itself
there.
You
did
not
need
to
make
any
commits
to
the
cross
Panetta
github
that
IO
repo.
A
You
only
need
to
make
changes
in
the
markdown
itself,
with
these
special
headers
they've,
given
directive
to
the
static
site,
generator
that
generates
across
bio
Docs
and
tell
us
that
how
to
insert
the
Martha
your
page
into
the
table
of
contents,
so
no
age,
we
don't
have
any
front-end
programmers
in
this
community
I,
don't
think
so.
It's
probably
better
that
we
don't
touch
javascript
in
HTML
ourselves,
we'll
have
to
have
our
hands
held
by
Connor,
Michael
or
Steven,
and.
D
Susskind
found
a
trick
for
getting
a
live
preview
to
work
off
of
the
the
dock
from
the
local
crossplane
docks
and
so
there's
a
PR
open
in
crossplane
io.
Oh
that's
what
it
is
that
basically
I,
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
land
here
pretty
quick,
but
if
want
to
use
that
command.
If
it
all
like,
you
do
a
live
preview
of
your
doctor
changes,
so
you
can
see
the
table
of
contents
and
how
that
how
that
actually
looks.
A
Yeah
that
was
I
took
that
for
a
test
for
myself
locally.
It
was
super
useful,
so
yeah.
If
you
want
to
see
how
your
Doc's
rendered
on
the
actual
real
Crossman
data
a
website
locally
on
your
laptop
you
can
use
I
would
like
to
merge.
This
I
think
that
it
wasn't
UNIX
friendly
Phil
like
the
commands
to
get
NPM
installed,
but
I.
A
D
A
A
Well,
okay,
so
that
is
all
the
pull
requests
that
I
had
on
this
on
this
agenda
here
and
that
is
there
the
end
of
the
agenda
as
a
whole
as
well
does
so
I
think
we
talked
through
everything
that
we
needed
to
discuss
and
figure
out
for
getting
sir
top
three
release
that
is
tomorrow
morning.
So
we
definitely
need
to
wrap
everything
up
all
new
sins
by
the
end
of
day
two
day
before
the
release
train
runs
tomorrow
morning,
Pacific
time.
A
So,
if
there's
any
questions
on
priority
calls
scopes
cuts
anything.
We
need
to
figure
that
all
out
today,
so
let's
stay
focused.
Let's
try
to
get
all
this
stuff
wrapped
up
and
we
will,
you
know,
be
very
happy
on
the
other
side
of
the
release
tomorrow.
Are
there
any
other
items
that
anyone
wants
to
bring
up
before?
We
adjourn
this
meeting.
B
A
A
B
Exactly
I
will
test
to
test
the
P
I,
don't
know
what
like,
if
you
don't
man
wanted.
That's
also
fine.
Look
at
this
comment
is
this
Nick
I
know
me.
Unfortunately,.
A
A
Awesome,
fantastic
okay
goals,
yeah,
so
that
seems
somewhat
reasonable
because
it's
a
single
line
and
it's
already
a
pattern
we're
doing
for
another
field
as
well.
So
if
you're
testing
looks
good
on
that,
one
then
update
the
PR
comments
and
then
we
can
take
a
look
and
probably
approve
that
one
too
cool.
D
D
A
Okay,
got
it
awesome?
Okay,
so
that
I
think
that's
everything
for
this
meeting
agenda
today,
so
great
work,
everybody
on
0.3,
we
one
more
day
here,
wrap
everything
up
and
then
you
know
be
really
happy
with
what
we
put
out
there
tomorrow.
So
thanks
everybody
very
much
for
the
meeting
here
and
we'll
we'll
adjourn
for
this
week.
That's
good
thanks
for
right.
Thanks.