►
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
Everybody
hear
me:
oh
yes,
so
my
thing
from
last
week
was
to
check
to
verify
that
we
can
cherry-pick
and
merge
requests
that
originated
in
canonical
and
cherry-pick
that
merge
into
the
auto
Doughboy
branch
on
security,
which
we
totally
can
we
just
have
to
verify
first,
that
that
merged
Mitchell
has
been
mirrored
successfully.
So
the
implementation
that
I've
got
in
the
work
in
progress
in
that
last
time
are
10:59
that
currently
kind
of
just
pulls
the
security
branch
and
make
sure
that
commit
exists.
C
B
Think
the
current
strategy
for
is
for
that
to
be
visible,
at
least
as
far
as
like
the
workflow
is
concerned.
We
definitely
want
to
tell
people-
okay,
just
like
you're
looking
for
the
other,
to
look
right.
Just
I'm
gonna
be
out
sorry,
but
we're
not
there,
yet
so,
probably
yeah
late
next
week.
Oh
that's
me.
Okay,.
C
Cool
yeah,
it's
just
make
sure
that's
super
clear,
I,
like
what
the
new
steps
are
cool
and
do
you
know?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
straightforward
one
in
terms
of
testing
like
it's,
it's
something
that
if
it's
working
it's
just
working
and
if
it's
not
it's
clearly
not
or
other,
possibly
any
edge
cases
or
like
special
situations
for
me
to
think
about.
Yes,.
B
So,
as
far
as
like
the
current
workload
concerned,
we're
we're
just
cherry-picking
non-security
fixes
that
should
be
it
either
works
or
doesn't
if
we
want
to,
but
when
we
eventually
want
to
expand
beyond
that
and
say
we
can
also
cherry-pick
security
fixes
and
do
the
auto
deploy
branch
that
will
be
a
separate
set.
Okay,.
A
Yep
thanks
Robert,
so
just
under
status
about
the
validation
of
security
fixes
before
they
are
merged,
so
I
tested
to
the
package
and
QA
and
it
works
wonderful,
so
I
am
very
happy
with
it
and
I.
Also,
as
you
can
see,
I
recorded
a
video
for
the
up
SEC,
so
I
wanted
to
be
very
clear
about
what
the
process
should
look
like
and
I
think
it
worked.
D
D
But
are
we
requiring
an
approval?
What
did
we
say?
We
are
only
talking
about
a
number
rather
than
specific
team
to
approve,
because
if
you
have
a
team
that
you
want
to
approve,
you
can't
make
a
distinction
between
what
is
targeting
a
stable
branch
and
what
is
master
every
place
would
have
to
know
we
can
happen
yeah
we
can
yeah.
A
D
A
A
Ok,
can
you
see
my
screen
whoo,
so
I
already
added
the
validation,
the
art
approval
and,
as
you
can
see
well,
we
can
set
the
target
branch,
but
I
created
this
merge
request
before
adding
the
approval,
so
I
was
expecting
for
the
approval
parts
to
be
refresh,
which
was
not
the
case
and
then
I
noticed
like
ok
in
our
documentation.
We
actually
specify
that
any
merge
request
created
before
the
rule.
A
It
is
not
going
to
apply
the
rule,
so
that
means
that
all
the
merch
requests
we
have
so
far
targeting
master
are
not
going
to
require
the
rule.
By
default
now
we
only
have
15
targeting
master,
so
I
got
pink.
This
is
like
a
major
problem,
but
I'm
also
not
sure
how
to
deal
with
these
ones.
That
already
exist.
A
A
D
Shouldn't
spend
time
with
this
15
merge
requests
process
that
is
changing,
I
think
we
should
move
on
and
leave
it,
as
is
deal
with.
The
15
merge
request
disease
like
tell
developers
like
this,
is
the
the
process
you're
going
to
follow
and
and
be
done
with
it.
I
think
we
have
more
important
things
to
care
for
than
15
merge
requests
in
a.
A
That
actually
takes
me
to
my
problem.
My
problem
numbers
too,
so
I
open.
Another
merge
request
like
after
having
said
the
rule,
and
while
we
can
see
that
the
upset
rule
is
here,
so
we
need
the
AB
SEC
approval
and
we
need
like
the
maintainer
approval,
which
is
great,
but
I
also
noted
that
if
I
did
the
merge
request,
I
can
also
like
very
easily
remove
this
rule
and
well.
A
This
might
be
my
paranoia
talking,
but
on
the
first
side
for
the
first
time,
I
was
thinking
of
simply
ensuring
that
the
validations
were
like
satisfied
and
there
is
like
a
very
handy
field
in
the
API
for
that.
But
that
will
not
consider
if
we
don't
have
this
rule.
If
someone
removes
this
rule
like
manually
so.