►
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
Shocking
approvers,
how
do
I
find
the
delivery
group
now.
A
A
I
think
it's
one
of
those
weird
search
box
problems.
We
have
okay,
so
we
want
to
see
if
adding
and
removing
approvals
gives
you
updated
products,
you
don't
get
the
result,
delivery
nope.
This
is
me
a
couple
of
months
ago.
B
B
A
I
think
this
is
this
is
probably
step
number
five
and
then
even
then,
only
if
someone
does
something
really.
A
A
A
C
I
think
so
I
suppose
I'm
not
clear
at
this
stage
like
for
you,
robert,
like
how
much
more
work
have
you
got
in
the
things
you're
doing
like
how
soon
do
we
need
to
kind
of
pick
up
the
next
idea,
so.
B
For
actually
exclusively
creating
the
security,
auto
deploy
branch
or
sorry,
the
auto
deployment
on
security,
I've
got
an
open,
merge
request
under
review
with
yorkie
had
some
notes.
So
I'm
going
back
to
that
today
and
then
I
put
in
some
pto
for
the
end
of
this
week,
so
probably
early
next
week
on
the
implementation
and
then
testing
late
next
week,.
A
Cool,
I
have
a
silly
idea,
yeah
that
you
can
test
right
now
and
I
don't
think
myron
needs
to
have
a
decision
for
this.
So
that's
why
I
think
it's
maybe
appropriate
to
discuss
it
right
now.
A
One
of
the
things
we
kind
of
ignored-
or
rather
we
decided
to
ignore
last
week-
was
we
just
assumed
that
no
one
is
going
to
take
care
about
the
fact
that
auto
deploy
branches
are
out
there
right
like
no
one
is
going
to
look
at
them
apart
from
quality
engineering
or
product
engineering
productivity,
rather
because
they're
actually
helping
us,
try
the
the
field
pipelines
right.
A
A
I'm
to
blame
here.
Definitely
I'm
sorry
myra
for
for
doing
that.
So,
theoretically,
what
we
could
test
out
is
see
who
complains,
if
we
don't
start
hiding,
show
yeah
like
we
want
to
know
how
to
deploy
branches
right
like
we.
We
want
to
always
know
where
they
are,
how
they
look
and
so
on,
but
maybe
we
should
like
figure
out
if
anyone
else
but
scarce.
D
Hey
sorry,
I'm
back
something
funny
happened,
someone
crashed
on
the
electricity
thing
and
the
whole
block
went
down
and
well,
mr
krabs,
that's
not
funny.
The
person
is
fine,
but
it
was
awful.
So
now
I
don't
have
internet
I'm
using
my
network's
connection.
Sorry,
I
needed
to
run.
A
Well,
I'm
sorry
to
hear
that
myra
you
by
the
way
we
didn't
make
any
decisions
and
we
decided
not
to
make
any
decisions
without
you,
so
I
was
just
afraid
that
you
table
flipped
because
I
I
said
like
this
is
not
really
that
important.
A
So
I
was.
I
was
just
saying
to
robert
that
last
week
we
kind
of
made
the
decision
that
we
want
to
experiment
and
see
whether
security
branches,
sorry
auto
deploying
in
security
repositories,
is
good
enough
and
does
help
us
not
care
about
secure,
auto,
deploy
branches
being
canonical.
A
A
No
not
ask
do
because
asking
doesn't
help
asking
doesn't
help.
We
are
too
big
to
get
just
go
and
ask
like
actually
like
make
a
change
and
then
see
who
pops
up
and
says
hey.
I
I
needed
this
for
whatever
reason.
A
D
Yeah,
I
think
there
might
be
a
tiny
problem
with
very
tiny
problem
with
quality
because
they
track
failures
on
auto
deployment
branch
on
canonical.
D
D
D
They
are
read
and
because
we
don't
have
merch
request
results,
so
a
security
merchandise
can
be
merged
and
it
can
be
like
400
merchants
behind
master
and
then
aruba
cup
rule
was
allowed
and
then
this
one
merged,
and
then
it
is
failure.
A
D
D
B
A
B
A
B
So
if
it
wasn't
for
us
doing
the
updating
the
giddily
version
like
every
time,
there's
green
master
in
italy,
we
update
the
gateway
server
version
in
rails
on
the
auto
deploy
branch.
If
it
wasn't
for
that,
then
we
could
actually
do
this
cherry
picking
into
only
security
right
now,
because
no
other
changes
would
come
into
the
audible
branch.
B
B
B
A
Okay,
so
who
wants
to
recap
where
we
are
at
then,
but
now
that
we
know
that
we
have
this
path
forward,
that
we
have
smaller
items,
that
we
don't
care
about
and
that
we
can
test
things
before
merging
and
making
a
changing
process?
C
So
I
think,
do
we
end
up?
We
end
up
with
auto
deploys
and
security
releases
both
coming
out
of
security.
I
think
they're
still
separate
is
that
right
security
things
now
in
the
auto
deploy
I'm
not
claire.
B
D
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I
think
the
next
step
after
these
ones
is
precisely
that
figure
it
out.
How
can
we
merge
a
security,
merge,
request
or
more
like
what
do
we
need
to
merge
it
and
then,
at
the
same
time,
we
still
need
to
be
able
to
continue
merging
like
the
regular
ones
and
continue
flowing
with
those
branches.
B
A
A
How
many
actual
merge
requests
do
we
have
in
the
master
branch
that
we
are
continuously
auto,
deploying
that
are
ready
that
we
should
be
releasing,
and
this
is
the
part
where
I
asked
all
of
you
to
challenge
the
current
process,
which
is
we
want?
We
won't
be
able
to
wait
for
one
monthly
release
or
a
critical
security
release.
We
will
have
to
have
a
system
that
will
allow
us
to
say.
Okay
now
we
have,
I
don't
know
five
merge
requests
that
are
continuously
being
merged.
D
Yeah,
I
think
it
is
time
for
us
to
introduce
or
to
start
thinking
about
security
releases
on
demand,
which
is
basically,
we
have
five
security
issues
ready.
The
backboards
are
ready.
We
should
like
publish.
D
A
What,
if,
like
you
said,
we
are
merging
into
security
master
right
like
say,
merge,
request
in
security
reviewed
approved
by
appsec.
We
merge
it
into
security,
dash
master
master
is
free,
flowing,
auto
deploys
are
being
created
from
master.
That
goes
from
canonical
all
the
way
to
to
build,
and
we
say
that
everything
that
gets
merged
into
security
master
gets
picked
into
autodeploy,
but
because
it
also
has
security
on
it.
The
label
never
gets
removed.
A
So,
every
time
a
new
auto
deploy
branch
gets
created,
we
pick
it
automatically
into
the
auto
deploy
branch.
This
way
master
will
always
remain
flowing.
We
will
be
always
creating
auto
deploy
from
the
base
of
the
the
regular
master.
The
merge
request
will
be
merged,
so
we
know
it
actually
was
mergeable
and
we
will
just
daily
repeat.
B
A
Minute,
sorry,
sorry,
one
minute
to
go.
I
wanna
explain
before
I
leave
you
with
this.
Once
we
once
we,
we
have
the
pressure
of
security
release
right.
We
have
five
merge
requests
that
we
are
continuously
picking
into
our
new
auto
deploy
branches.
A
We
call
a
security
patch
release.
The
security
patch
release
says
I'm
checking
for
the
following
pick
into
autodeploy
security,
and
I
find
all
the
back
parts
that
I
want
to
do
our
regular
tasks
peak
into
the
stable
branches,
the
back
ports
from
the
ones
that
we
want
to
create
and
then
the
merge
request
that
was
targeting
security
master.
A
At
that
point,
we
remove
peaking
to
auto,
deploy
and
then
add
another
label
which
would
be
ready
for
publishing
once
we
get
to
the
point
of
publishing
the
packages,
so
you
know
all
the
things
that
need
to
happen.
We
remove
that
label
from
the
merge
request,
and
that
signifies
that
this
is
now
ready
to
go
all
the
way
up
to
canonical
complex,
I'm
late
to
my
next
meeting,
but
I'm
leaving
you
with
that
idea
to
tell
me
that
this
is
really
dumb
cool.
A
B
Yeah,
it
sounded
complicated.
I
don't
know
if
that's
entirely
doable
because
like
if
we
have
emerging
security,
merchandise,
targeting
security
master
and
that
gets
merged,
then
that's
basically,
the
security
master
is
basically
frozen
in
time
and
when
they
were
trying
to
cherry
pick,
changes
from
it
into
the
autoplay
range,
which
is
now
created
from
this
free-flowing
master,
which
is
constantly
changing
you're.
Creating
that
potential
of
cherry-picking
that
something
is
no
longer
relevant
to
this
auto
deploy
branch
right.
B
D
I
mean
yeah,
but
the
problem
that
we
are
trying
to
solve
is
to
identify
right
what
merchant
quest
should
be
peaking
to
the
auto
deploy
or
are
we
trying
to
solve
another
problem?
Because
if
that
is
the
problem,
then
we
can
just
I'm
still
seeing
the
security
implementation
issues
associated
to
the
security
release
tracking
issue,
and
then
we
can
just
read
those
and
then
surely
pick
those,
but
I'm
not
sure
like
what
is
the
problem
that
we
are
trying
to
solve.
Now,
among
all
the
our
problems.
C
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
this
is
a
slight
it's
a
different
version
of
the
problem
right,
so
the
one
we
were
talking
about
previously
was
the
not
blocking
auto
deploys
with
security
releases,
and
this
is
the
I
mean
in
an
ideal
world,
essentially
turn
security
releases
into
something,
certainly
more
frequent.
Hopefully,.
D
Automated
well,
it
is
something
that
I
guess
we
are
going
to
encounter,
but
perhaps
we
should
focus
on.
How
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
merge
the
security
merge
request
as
soon
as
they
are
ready?
C
Yeah
I
mean
there's
certainly
different
ways
to
tackle
the
problem.
Like
I
think
you
know,
we
know
it.
We
want
it
to
be
like
automated
and
probably
the
easiest
process
we
could
possibly
get
so
that
it's
easier
to
automate.
C
So
if
there's
any
manual
steps,
we
can
continue
removing
and
then
fast
is
probably
the
next
big
thing.
I've
never
super
decided
on
whether
automated
or
fast
comes
first,
but
certainly
the
faster.
It
is
the
easier
things
are
and
then
hopefully
that
gets
us
the
being
able
to
have
the
choices
of
like
we
could
go
weekly
or
daily
or
whatever
makes
sense.
C
Could
we
try
and
map
that
out
a
little
like,
so
where
are
the
kind
of
diagrams
you
went
through
last
week,
which
kind
of
showed
the
where
things
flowed?
C
D
Yeah,
I
think
so
yeah.
I
think
I
think
they
might
be
helpful
like
yeah,
so
we
are
a
bit
over
time
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
have
something
like
to
do,
and
I
can
see
that
robert
already
pointed
out
a
to-do
and
on
my
side
I
am
going
to
still
working
on
the
adding
the
validation
into
our
tooling,
and
I
can
also
update
the
epic
with
what
are
the
blockers
that
we
discovered
today.
C
Great
great,
that
makes
sense.
Oh
yeah,
I
think
it's
a
really
good
one
to
be
thinking
about
and
yeah.
We
could
kind
of
push
in
an
ideal
world
we'll
have
auto,
deploys
going
and
doing
their
thing
and
security
releases
as
well
going
out
as
often
as
we
like
so
yeah.
If
we
can
start
thinking
about
how
we'd
do
that
be
awesome,.
D
Well,
okay,
I
guess
we
can
in
the
meeting
now
cool
thanks
very
much
all
right,
I'll,
see
you
next
week.
Thank
you.
Vote
bye.