►
From YouTube: Child/Parent Pipeline Discussion
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).
B
What
we
will
need
primarily
discussed
today
and
I
also
had
some
tags
to
see:
gonna
involve
people,
I'm,
just
gonna
stake
and
another
some
consideration,
which
is
things
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
throughout
the
tasks
and
I'm
still
not
sure
what
they
don't
really
classify
as
tasks
itself.
But
there
are
things
we
need
to
kind
of
keep
in
mind
as
we
implement
other
things.
B
If
that
doesn't
happen
from
day
one,
it's
not
it's
not
a
broken
feature,
it's
just
incomplete,
so
we
still
allow
child
parent
pipelines
and
to
be
created,
but
we
just
don't
propagate
the
variables
which,
which
is
an
incomplete,
but
at
least
like
we
we
have.
We
allows
part
of
the
palatal
to
be
provided
right.
B
How
I
would
like
to
approach?
This
is
first
of
all,
we
could
introduce
a
feature
flag
which
is
off
by
default.
That
allows
us
to
do
the
the
values
implementation
even
nice,
incomplete.
We
can
at
least
a
merge
the
merge
request
and
not
turning
on
the
fidgets
plug
until
we
actually
are
happy
with
implementation.
B
So
this
will
be
probably
the
first
step
of
defining
which
feature
flag
we
want
to
use
and
and
for
any
may
be
working
on
the
younger
syntax
that
will
be
used
for
that
and
I'll
put
that
behind
the
future
flag,
which
means
a
development
environment.
We
can
turn
on
the
feature
flooded
with
the
various
tests,
but
then
production
just
doesn't
exist
and
then
for
the
mix.
B
The
static
will
be
to
modify
the
mechanism
we
currently
have
for
creating
cross
project
pipelines
and
always
renaming
that
in
to
create
downstream
pipeline
services
that,
because
it's
not
a
cross
project
anymore
and
ensure
the
duct
is
able
to
create
child.
This
is
probably
the
primary
change
that
this
must
happen.
I
think
before
this
is
in
place.
We
basically
don't
have
any
baseline
for
any
other
tasks.
B
Other
child
pipeline
I
want
to
use
this
other.
So
so
we
have
basically
the
fracturing
in
place
for
a
lot
of
this
to
happen,
and
then
the
third
is
about
ensuring
that
all
these
are
actually
happening
correctly,
which
would
be
to
have
the
child
pipeline.
That
will
not
contribute
directly
to
the
marriage
request
status,
but
will
be
the
parent
pipeline,
the
only
I
plan
that
will
actually
contribute
to
that
and
a
least
a
few
things.
B
We
need
to
do
like
a
the
fact
that
we
should
not
show
the
latest
tag
for
the
pipelines,
but
because
we
will
have
only
a
parent.
My
client
primarily
to
work
on
and
I
don't
know,
is
the
fact
that
when
we
create
a
child
pipeline,
all
the
various
settings
of
the
parent
by
planning
to
passing
to
their
to
their
child
pipeline.
These
are
things
we
need
to
consider.
Possibly,
this
could
be
bundled
into
number
two
tasks,
if
it's
possible,
so
then
we
are
left
with
there.
B
C
So
yeah
I'll
I'll
create
the
separate
issue
and
then
I'll
update
this
this
the
this
task,
these
tasks
to
just
I,
put
the
issue
number
next
to
it
at
the
end.
So
we're
aware
and
then
and
then,
when
we
get
to
that
point,
when
you
have
the
baseline,
then
more
than
one
developer
can
can
take
those
different
issues.
Yes,
okay,
do
do.
Do
you
feel
that
those
can
be
achieved
in
this
milestone?
A
C
D
B
B
D
D
B
C
That's
actually
that's
what
I
thought
to
me
treat
the
the
one
you're
thinking
of
is
actually
the
opposite
of
that
task
that
that
Fabio
mentioned
so
I
will
create
a
separate
issue
in
order
to
limit,
and
then
the
one
you
found
Dmitri
is
to
remove
the
limitation.
D
C
C
D
B
You
try
to
do
that,
but
at
least
it's
not
part
of
the
critical
part
where
it
does
only
has
a
dependency
on
the
under
content
with
this
task.
So
this
can
be
worked
on
separately.
Okay,
so
then
we
are
left
I
know.
Finally,
then
we
have
the
fact
of
we
can
flip
the
feature
flag
definition
to
be
default
true,
but
this
is
not
critical,
so
this
is.
We
could
even
do
that.
We
decided
to
shoot
the
feature
and
turn
on
the
feature
flag
on
gitlab
project
first,
so
we
can
test
it.
C
B
C
B
B
D
There
perhaps
we
start
off
with
the
first
one
I
brought
down
my
comment
there
to
reduce
scope
and
complexity
and
considering
making
child
pipelines
only
accessible
through
their
parent
pipeline.
So
there
will
be
not
be
shown
as
first-class
citizen
similar
to
either
you
know
a
normal
pipeline
or
a
normal
upstream
or
downstream
pipeline.
D
Those
are
accessible
from
the
pipelines
lists
from
the
like
any
on
the
other
normal
pipeline.
However,
this
is
a
child
pipeline,
so
in
a
way
they
they
will
always
influence
the
overall
pipeline
status
of
the
parent
pipeline
in
that
way,
I'm
thinking
of
making
it
only
accessible
through
the
parent
pipeline
and
that
way
we're
moving
a
lot
of
our
needs
to
adjust
things
in
in
different
views.
When.
B
D
B
D
B
D
A
A
That's
a
great
question:
I
haven't
I,
haven't
considered
this
component
right
here,
the
ones
that
I've
researched
with
the
endpoints
and
everything
did
not
include
this.
This
is
like
a
merger
request,
widget
component,
which
I
have
no
clue
the
data
or
they
a
lot
of
them,
have
different
influence.
So
I'm,
assuming
this
one
may
as
well.
B
Page,
the
meanie.
B
D
A
D
D
That
is
correct,
so
if
you
click
on
a
downstream
pipeline
or
an
upstream
in
that
fact,
I
believe
it
will
expand
that
pipeline
within
the
current
view,
what
I'm,
not
so
fond
of
is
to
create
a
additional
column,
for
example,
for
child
pipelines.
Okay,
that
will
create.
You
know
a
lot
of
UI
complexity
and
unnecessary
complexity.
Iii
would
say
we
could
potentially
list
them
under
the
same
column
and
make
them
expandable
within
the
you
know
in
the
same
way
as
downstream
pipelines.
But
then
we
we
should,
you
know.
D
D
D
D
A
D
And
then
an
alternative
would
be
so
you
have
the
trigger
job
that
creates
the
child
pipeline
right.
What
if
we
altered
that
functionality
that
it
immediately
clicks
through
to
the
actual
child
child
pipeline?
So
we
do
not
list
it
under
downstream
pipelines.
It
does
not
expand
in
line.
We
remove
all
that.
We
do
not
have
anything
to
do
with
it.
Actually,
even
but
then,
if
you
click
on
the
trigger
job,
it
actually
is
the
child
pipeline.
So
you
you
are
navigated
into
it.
Perhaps
that
simplifies
the
concept
quite
a
bit
big.
D
D
D
B
D
A
D
So,
okay,
now
I'm
thinking
of
perhaps
I'll
display
that
or
I
will
come
that
in
the
in
the
issue
later,
but
that's
more
upfront
and
consideration
is
perhaps
that
you
know
currently,
we
then
have.
If
this
is
employment,
we
have
to
kind
of
trigger
jobs,
trigger
jobs
that
create
a
downstream
pipeline
and
trigger
jobs
that
create
a
child
pipeline.
Basically,
the
trigger
jobs
that
create
downstream
pipelines
are
not
clickable
as
far
as
I
can
remember.
Yes
right
and
these
three
jobs
are
I.
A
D
Like
to
differentiate
between
that-
and
perhaps
you
know,
can
make
it
a
little
bit
more
clear
towards
user
that
this
trigger
job
actually
is
and
like
a
pipeline.
There's
a
pipeline
inside
that
right,
basically
right
from
a
user's
perspective.
You
you
just
want
to
know
like
hey
where's,
the
tagline
triggered
within
the
within
my
pipeline
graph
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
click
through
it
and
that
information
is
as
clear
as
possible.
So
perhaps
a
small
modification
of
the
UI
node
might
be
an
option.
B
A
D
D
Regardless
of
the
result
of
the
downstream
pipeline.
Those
kind
of
things
aren't
possible
with
trigger
jobs.
Have
we
considered
that
for
for
child
pipelines
as
well
and
like
I,
think
it
should
be
possible
to
do
that?
But
perhaps
there
is
a
consideration
I'm
not
seeing.
We
don't
want
to
allow
that,
for
example,
for
child
pipelines,
yeah.
A
A
B
D
If
it's
a
like,
if
it's
an
in,
if
it's
a
child
pipeline,
do
we
allow,
for
example,
allow
failure
on
the
trigger
job,
because,
if
that
is
the
case,
the
trigger
job
can
differ
in
status
from
the
child
pipeline,
because
the
pipeline,
the
child
pipeline
come
and,
for
example,
be
fail,
it
can
fail,
while
the
trigger
job
can
say.
State
allowed
to
fail
like
this
was
failed,
but
allowed
to
fail.
So
there's
a
difference.
D
B
Actually
let
me
double
check
that
so
we
do
have
yeah,
so
we
did
have
like,
for
some
strategy
depend
on
strategy
wait.
So
we
expect
that
this
should
work
the
same
way.
We
do
we
cross
project
pipeline.
So
that
scenario
you
can
do
on
failure
or
own
success.
You
can
define
what
kind
of
strategy
for
what
kind
of
dependency
on
the
status
for
the
attribution
you
want
to
have
and
that's
an
ally.
The
end
will
be
that
then
the
status
of
the
pipeline
will
contribute
to
the
pipeline
or
could
be.
B
D
D
C
B
A
D
A
A
Okay,
that
that
takes
care
of
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
investigation
work
for
you,
Fabio
pretty
much
all
of
those
endpoints
that
are
down
below
no
no
longer
matter.
A
Do
do
those
three
views
rendered
pipeline
rows
that
showed
the
current
running
pipeline
and
from
the
original
issue
description,
it
said
we
must
show
child
pipelines
in
these
views
and
the
endpoints
there
didn't
support
child
pipelines
or,
like
a
way
to
say
it
was
a
child
pipeline
from
what
I
saw.
So,
if
we're
not
showing
those
there,
then
those
shouldn't
be
actionable
items
I,
believe,
okay,.
D
D
B
A
B
A
D
There
still
might
be
a
need
for
displaying
a
tag,
because,
within
the
pipeline
detail
view
there
in
the
widget
above,
there
is
a
little
road
that
displays
those
tags
and
if
we,
you
know,
decide
a
later
point
with
that
isolated
issue
that
you
know
looks
into
if
we
need
to
display
this
this
pipeline
anyway,
in
some
places
we
are
going
to
show
that
tag.
That
indicates
this
is
the
child
pipeline
forces
and
on
any
yes
that.
B
D
Yeah,
that's
an
interesting
idea.
For
example,
when
an
issue
has
been
moved,
its
status
label
states
like
hey.
This
is
closed
but
moved
and
it
links
towards
the
you
know.
The
parents
already
did
the
moved
issue.
I
think
we
can
do
the
same
here,
though
I
do
not
think
we
need
to
specifically
state
the
ID
per
se.
Oh
okay,.
D
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
Yes,
you
can
I
mean
Dimitri
mentioned.
We
may
want
to
explore
that
a
little
bit
more,
but
as
far
as
this
current
milestone,
it's
not
relative.
Just
because
the
way
we're
gonna
be
displaying
those
child
pipelines
only
in
the
pipeline
detail
page,
we
won't
be
displaying
them.
You
know
the
rows
with
other
pipelines
are
so
we
don't
investigate
those
endpoints
to
return
child
pipelines.
That's.
D
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
good
point
so
follow
the
considerations.
I
want
to
follow
up
this
with
Camille
at
first
point,
and
this
was
like
one
note
from
him,
but
he
added
to
the
conversation
below
somewhere
in
the
comments
and
I
just
reported
here,
though,
to
pin
this
consideration,
but
I
want
to
discuss,
base
to
see
exactly
what
means
and
I
think
it's
more
something
you
might
happen
already
out-of-the-box.
We
just.
We
need
to
ensure
that
it
will
remain
consistent
with
whatever
behavior
we
have,
but
I
wanted
to
uncheck
that
too
they
didn't
exactly
what
this
means.
Yeah.
A
B
B
So
the
fact
that
for
for
a
merge
request,
we
have
a
head
pipeline
and
if
this
helped
I
plan
then
will
spawn
child
in
a
pipelines
and
the
merger
quest
status
should
be
only
linked
to
the
head
pipeline
and
not
any
of
the
child
pipelines
unless
the
restart
is
attribution
like
the
pan,
as
we've
seen,
but
that
scenarios
will
be
expected
to
be
a
race
currently
happening
with
the
moon
across
project
pipelines.
So
again,
this
is
the
kind
of
one
of
these
invariants
that
we
want
to
ensure
is
still
true
again.
B
D
B
A
D
B
A
B
D
B
D
A
C
A
A
B
B
B
Yeah,
so
when
we
create
a
child
pipeline,
do
we
need
to
propagate
certain
information,
because
we
won't
be
critical
at
pipeline,
for
example,
on
a
different
project
where
there
will
be
a
completely
different
char,
different
rev,
and
that
is
actually
passed
in
from
the
bridge
job.
When
this
scenario,
we
want
to
create
a
child
pipeline
that
has
a
lot
of
settings
already
started,
and
luckily
it's
especially
the
draft
in
the
sharp
something
that
is
related
to
the
snapshot
that
we
actually
test
them
know
that
we
are
building,
so
the
user
ID
will
be
the.
B
Look
version
I'm,
not
sure
I
need
to
double-check
that,
and
but
basically
yeah
we
have
source
will
be
the
same.
Config
source
will
be
again
the
same.
It
would
be
part
of
the
same
it
was
created
from
repository,
then,
will
be
another
pipeline
being
created
from
configuration
in
in
the
repository.
This
could
possibly
be
changing
if
we're
using
slightly
different
approaches
in
the
future,
the
only
will
be
same
source,
our
target
sha.
This
will
be
all
the
same.
B
B
A
B
A
So
since
these,
since
most
of
the
functionality
won't
for
back
in
will
be
you
know
locally,
would
you
how
am
I
gonna
have
to
mock
data
to
try
to
recreate
these
scenarios,
or
is
there
a
way
locally
that
I
can
test?
Now
you
know
the
data
returns
set
up
a
test
project
I
feel
to
do
the
front
end
work
so.
B
The
way
I
had
done,
presumably
I've
been
working
on
a
lot
of
the
kaliba
in
the
past
like
when
we
did
work
together.
Okay,
what
we
did
is
we
I
agreed.
First
of
all,
we
got
some
requirement
from
the
front
end
saying:
okay,
we
need
to
call
this
API
endpoint,
and
this
is
the
output
we
expect
if
exist.
Already
on,
we
modified
every
to
modify.
B
We
make
an
agreement
on
what
the
expectation
will
be
on
the
API
response
we
put
in
the
ticket
in
in
the
in
the
issue
and
then
win
sure
back
and
ensures
that
when
we
render
the
new
endpoint,
the
new
response
will
have
structure
okay,
but
then
you
can
mock
on
your
side.
They
the
response,
and
you
can
start
working
on
doing
the
front
end
and
then,
at
the
end,
when
the
back
end
is
ready,
we
do
our
end-to-end
testing
and
make
sure
everything
works.
That's
how
we
really
working
so
yeah.
B
A
C
Right
there
we're
so
I
was
reading
that
it
says
there.
Navigation
between
child
parent
pipeline
must
use
our
existing
upstream
downstream
visualization
approach.
So
my
question,
Dimitri
just
is
that
statement
still
valid.
I
have
two
questions.
Is
that
a
requirement
that's
coming
from
Jason
writing
from
the
PM
perspective
and
then
has
anything
we
discussed
today
made
that
statement
no
longer
valid?
Could.
C
C
All
right
so
yeah
so
I
didn't
I,
didn't
understand
that
was
proposal
and
I'm
glad
to
know
that
it
was
a
proposal
coming
from
you
that
we're
actually
going
to
deviate
from
based
on
our
discussion
decision
in
this
meeting.
I'm
wondering
if
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
represent
that
by
striking
that
all
together
from
the
description
or
do
it
die.
Just
leave
it
to
you
to
I
do
want
to
remove.
D
D
C
C
D
There
is
a
follow-up
issue,
but
it
is
a
slightly
different
matter.
We,
this
is
basically
we
thought
of
a
simpler,
perhaps
even
more
boring
solution
towards
this.
What
what
this
proposal
wanted
to
fix
and
the
other
issue
is
towards
potentially
visualizing
the
pipeline
in
more
places
than
we've
now
decided
to
simplify
the
MVC
concept,
a
little
bit
more
yeah.
C
Actually,
it
was
a
it
was
all
together.
The
first
is
who
from
who
made
that
statement
under
further
details.
It
was
coming
from
p.m.
or
UX
and
then
the
second
is:
what
do
we
have
to
modify
so
it?
So
it
reflects
what
we
decided
in
this
meeting
or
who
needs
to
modify.
So
I
think
that
the
answer
was
on
everything
under
further
details
was
a
proposal
from
Dimitri
and
he
is
gonna
own
updating
these
details
to
reflect
our
latest
decision.
D
I'll
create
a
comment
as
well,
because
I
need
to
comment
on
the
discussion
or
proposal.
I
should
say
idea
from
Camille
that
Peyton
mentioned
me
and
I'll
create
a
copy
I'll.
The
newly
defined
UX
perspective
on
this
idea,
and
which
has
also
been
copied
into
the
description
by
them.
I'll
have
a
meeting
right
after
this
one.
So
I'll
probably
update
that
afterward
after
that's
finished.
Okay,
it.
D
It
kind
of
falls
in
line
with
what
we've
now
decided
so
yeah.
It
was
on
the
he
was
on
the
good
in
a
good
direction.
Let
me
see
so
and-
and
he
basically
the
one
question
that
remains
there
is
do
we
need
to
show
child
pipelines
within
a
single
view,
basically
no,
not
per
se,
but
it
is
perhaps
a
you
know,
opportunity
to
look
into
in
the
future.
D
B
C
I'll
create
the
additional
separate
issues
for
the
p2
items
under
tasks,
including
task
number,
six
that
was
mislabeled
p1,
but
I'll
change
it
to
p2
was
I
created
additional
issues.
I'll
add
the
link
to
those
issues
next
to
these
tests.
So
we
know
that
these
tasks
won't
be
handled
in
this
MBC
issue,
but
in
the
other
ones.
Okay,.