►
From YouTube: Delivery:Orchestration demo - EMEA/AMER
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
A
A
B
Only
thing
with
the
public
one
is
what
what
is
the
what's
the
controls
then
like
what
happens?
If
it
is,
I
I
I
worry
more
about
that
one.
Can
we
change
the
settings
on
this
like
or
after
the
private
live
stream?
Can
we
switch.
A
B
A
During
this,
so
that's
let
me
do
this
just
for
an
example
right.
I
will
so
that
we
record
this
as
well,
so
I
will
screen
share
this
thing
here,
so
this
is
me:
I
can't
see
it
because
it's
private
then
I
can
in
theory,
I
should
be
able
to
go
here,
switch
to
this
account.
A
Mute,
okay,
yeah!
That's
the
thing!
There
is
a
lot
of
delay
as
you
can
see
right
so
and
because
there
is
this
delay.
Basically,
if
we
say
something
we
can
just.
I
think
it's
here,
edit
video.
A
B
A
This
opens
by
so
the
thing
is
this
thing's
open
by
himself,
because
when
you
say
I
want
a
live
stream,
it
opens
the
browser
because
it
helps.
A
Do
you
want
to,
and
when
you
start
it
it
gives
you
the
link.
Okay
and
I
was
with
bro-
I
mean
I
I'm
usually
use
my
own
account,
which
is
what
everyone
should
be
doing.
So
it
tells
me
you
can't
do
anything
here,
but
then
you
switch
and
you
have
edit
everything
is
there.
You
can
switch
to
the
github
on
filter.
Then
you
have
right
access
right.
So,
okay,.
A
Team
delivery
done
okay
and.
B
The
other
one
as
well,
which
is
enabling
self-serve
deployments
demo,
are
the
guidelines.
Three
yeah.
B
B
A
A
B
Do
you
mind
alessia
as
well,
would
you
mind
just
updating
their
demo
guidelines
section
at
the
top
to
include
the
steps?
First.
B
Go
all
right
we'll
see
next
week
if
other
people
have
live
streaming
rights-
nice
thanks
up
so
number
two.
I
realized,
after
I'd,
sent
out
all
the
invites
and
scheduled
this
that
this
clashes
with
the
delivery
system
demo,
but
I
wanted
to
check
in
with
you
two
on
like.
B
Would
you
like
to
have
the
option
to
be
able
to
attend
the
system
demo
if
you
want
to
like,
shall
I
find
another
slot
for
this.
B
Cool
okay!
Well,
we
can
always,
if
ever
like
it
gets
to.
You
know
we
we
see
lots
more
conversions,
so
we
need
to
you
know
you
want
to
have
that
option.
Then
let
me
know-
and
we
can-
we
can
certainly
find
another
slot
for
us,
especially
in
the
next
few
months,
the
next
like
six
weeks
or
so.
That
would
be
very,
very
straightforward,
because
only
the
three
of
us,
because
myra
we
haven't
spoken
yet
today,
but
matt
is
now
likely
to
be
out
through
to
about
mid-october.
B
Cool,
so
I
dropped
number
three
on
the
agenda,
which
is
around
terminology,
so
graham,
has
put
together
a
doc.
I
know
I
saw
amira
you've
had
comments.
Saw
matt
has
added
some
comments,
but
one
thing
in
particular
I
wanted
us
to
try
and
unblock,
is
the
specifically
the
naming
of
automated
releases,
and
then
we
can
get
the
epics
created
for
pages
and
github
agent
service
and
metrics
exporter
as
well.
If
that
one
comes
in
so
let's
have
a
little
chat
about
the
options.
B
One
thing
I
realized,
as
I
was
thinking
about
this
one
is
perhaps
I
don't
have
a
super-
maybe
math
added
it
there,
but
unless
you
actually
want
to
maybe
just
give
a
short
summary
of,
like
somebody
saying
I
want
to
have
what
currently
termed
automated
release
like
what
are
they
actually
specifically
requesting.
A
Sure
so,
basically,
what
they
are
requesting
is
that
they
know
don't
have
to
care
about
tagging
and
branching.
That's
the
thing
right,
so
they
will
keep
their
version
file
in
the
rails.
Repo
updated-
and
this
is
a
big
unknown.
A
How
they're
gonna
do
this
without
targeting
their
own
releases,
but,
let's
imagine
for
a
moment
they
can
keep
this
updated
with
what
they
want
to
deploy
and
then,
when
we
tag
a
release,
monthly
release,
we
create
the
the
the
branches
and
tags
that
are
aligned
with
what
we
are
releasing
and
change
log
and
everything,
and
when
we
do
a
patch
release,
if
there
are
new
changes
on
their
stable
branches,
we
pack
everything
together
and
create
a
patch
release.
When
we
do
security
release
same.
B
A
Okay,
they
want
to
remove
all
the
administrative
charts
related
to
handling
the
packaging
themselves,
because
what
happens
for
for
for
developers
in
component
teams
when
they
do
this
manually
is
they
have
a
reminder
or
something
around
20
seconds?
Some
days
before
we
say
I
need
to
cut
a
new
release.
How
do
I
cut
any
release?
They
do
their
own
process,
they
cut
release,
they
do
everything
manually.
A
A
B
Okay,
so
to
summarize,
then
they
are.
B
A
So
I
I
agree
with
the
definition:
it's
just
that
the
definition
or
the
comment
that
grain
added.
It
is
kind
of
confusing
me
because
well,
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen,
so
yeah.
A
So
I
commented
here
that
I
really
enjoyed
the
automated
releases
because
I
believe
it
conveys
the
automation
that
would
manage
the
releases
for
the
component
and
then
graham's
answer
like
the
problem
is
releasing
seems
a
bit
ambiguous
like
when
I
hear
the
phrase
automated
releases.
I
assume
it
was
talking
about
self-managed
releases,
not
releases
of
the
component,
and
I
think
we're
talking
about
vote
here.
Yeah
right,
they
just
became
the
same
thing
exactly.
B
A
So
with
this,
there
is
just
one
release
type
and
is
the
self-managed,
because
outside
of
self-managed,
you
don't
care
because
you
work
by
sha,
but
this
was
that
that
was
a
discussion
point
last
time
because
it
was.
There
was
some
ambiguity
around
this,
because,
basically,
what
we're
going
to
say
is
that
we
remove
for
you
the
need
to
release
something
because
we
take
care
of
it
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
releases
became
the
same
thing
of
self-managed
release.
A
Prior
to
this,
you,
you
have
to
do
your
own
releases
and
then
decide
if
something
is
ready
for
the
customer,
because
you
may
do
several
releases
in
between
a
monthly
release
just
to
incrementally
deploy
changes
during
your
development.
A
Everything
is
the
team
is
doing
this
differently,
so
if
they
want
to
break
down
the
risk
of
shipping,
one
amount
of
features
in
just
one
go
a
couple
of
days
before
the
22nd
day.
Some
of
them
are
doing.
They
just
create
many
releases
during
the
the
month
and
every
time
they
do
a
new
release.
They
bump
the
version
and
they
bump
the
version,
the
bumper
version
and
then,
in
the
end,
when
the
when
we
create
the
stable
branches,
we
we
pick
just
the
the
version
that
the
last
version
they
were
using.
B
B
A
Is
an
artifact
that
is
published
yeah,
but
that's
that's
because
of
the
way
things
are
triggered
so
components,
don't
control
the
building
phase,
that's
just
how
omnibus
and
cng
and
everything
was
designed.
So
in
order
to
generate
a
package,
you
either
run
the
nightly
packages
that
we
that
we,
as
a
company
run
nightly.
B
A
B
Right
would
it
be
so
I
think
we
should
I
I
mean
I
know
I've
chatted
with
graeme
a
bit,
and
he's
mentioned
a
few
times
around,
like
a
lot
of
our
terms
are
super
overloaded.
I
think,
in
this
case,
release
is
one
of
those
words
like.
It
may
not
be
completely
like
possible
to
change
the
whole
company
sort
of
terminology,
but
how
about
for
our
sakes
like
within
our
the
things
we
control
release
means
like
a
package
that
could
or
release
mean
a
package
to
a
self-managed
user.
A
B
I
see
okay,
okay,
okay
well,
in
which
case
let's,
let's
this
is
so
this
is
actually
what
I
I
think
is
a
really
good
chance
for
us
to
look
a
little
bit
further
ahead
right.
So
we
have
lots
of
terms
in
action
right
now,
and
I
think
some
of
those
are
like
super
tied
to
like
implementation,
detail,
yeah
and
that's
a
good
point.
The
name
is
is
very
specifically
what
happens
right
now.
This
is
a
great
chance
for
us
to
start
thinking
about
what
are
people
signing
up
to
get
yeah.
A
I
was
thinking
about
some
of
those
names
from
a
different
perspective,
which
is
exactly,
as
you
said,
not
describing
the
implementation,
but
describing
some
kind
of
high
level
ideal
state
which
allows
us
to
match
those
with
what
we
have
today,
but
even
evolve
into
a
new
scheme
in
the
future
without
having
to
rename
them.
B
Exactly
yeah
people
don't
really
need
to
care
about
which
pipeline
did
we
use
or
was
it
release
tools
right,
like
they
multi-release,
I
think,
is
one
of
the
few
things
that's
really
well
named,
because
people
know
what
it
is.
They
know
the
rough
timeline
they
don't
care.
What
our
mechanism
for
making
that
happen.
It
just
happens.
A
Yeah,
I
pasted
my
note
so
I
I
was
thinking
that
from
the
top,
so
the
single
source
of
truth,
gitlab
or
gitlab
can
just
be
centralized
component
versioning,
which
today
is
there
tomorrow,
may
be
our
goal
to
move
this
versioning
somewhere
else,
because
we
have,
we
have
all
the
problem
about.
If
it's.
If
we
want
to
go
independent
deployment,
we
don't
really
know
how
to
track
things
if
we
want
to
track
before
we
deploy
after
we
deploy,
and
so
what
we
actually
need
in
order
to
have.
A
This
is
one
one
place
where
there
is
a:
what
are
the
information
about
the
components
right
so
automated
rollout?
I
was
persuaded
that
we
can
just
say
component
how
to
deploy,
because
it
is
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
is
enrolling
your
component
into
the
autodeploy
pipeline.
So
it's
everyone.
B
I
I
wonder
if,
like
I'm,
I'm
thinking
in
the
future,
that
what
we
may
end
up
with
is
say
a
stage
group
basically
gets
to
subscribe
to
choose
like.
Are
we
on
the
auto
deploy
path
or
are
we
on
the
inter
independent
deploy
path?
I
wonder
I
know
auto
deploy
is
super
embedded
already,
so
I
am
a
little
reluctant
to
change
it,
but
I
do
wonder
if
one
of
the
downsides
that
stage
groups
find
with
auto
deploys
is
that
we
control
it
and
the
benefit
of
independent
deploy
is
that
they
would
control
it.
B
A
It
tells
you
that
it
is
part
of
the
deploy
and
this
managed
process,
so
you
provide
what
is
needed
and
then
you
just
forget
about
it:
yeah
yeah,
if
you're.
B
A
So
that's
a
good
imp.
That's
a
good
point.
I
in
the
first
iteration
of
this
renaming
I
was
thinking
they
probably
would
want
to
keep
consistent,
naming
that
why
automated
was
nice,
because
you
have
automated
this
automated
that
automated
this
other.
But
then
there
were
not
that
many
steps,
and
so
I
just
removed.
I
just
I
give
everyone
a
different
name,
but
we
can
stick
with
managed.
B
Because
I
guess,
from
a
developer
perspective,
they
sort
of
don't
care.
If
we
have
automated
tools
or
not
what
they
care
about,
is
they
don't
have
to
do
something
like
they
would
get
as
much
benefits
as
jumping
in
and
oh
versioning
might
be
better,
because
it
indicates
that
there's
going
to
be
some
version,
consistency
right.
B
B
You
two
have
coordinated
your
outfits.
I
feel
very,
very
left
out
very
unsunny
compared
to
eating.
A
So
if
we
want
to
stay
with,
this
managed
naming
what
can
be
the
name
from
for
the
automated
update,
which
actually
means
deploy
from
the
main
branch.
B
So,
just
in
terms
of
I'm
a
developer,
I
I
this
is
what
basically,
what
gitli
get
right,
which
all
they
need
to
concern
themselves
with?
Is
they
have
merged
changes
into
their
main
correct,
and
then
it
will
be
deployed.
Yeah.
B
B
B
A
So
what
is
the
difference
between
the
automated
update
or
the
manage
auto
deploy?
Now
that
we
are
changing
the
name?
So
no
yeah,
that's
a
good
point
so
details
here.
So
in
theory,
that's
the
important
part
right.
You
can
just
do
automated
update.
Without
anything
else,
I
mean
you
need
the
first
one.
The
centralized
component
version
yeah.
A
Nothing
to
update,
say
you
have
it
and
say
you
just
do
the
automated
update,
even
by
yourself,
not
not
through
release
tools,
you
just
do
it.
What
will
end
up
happening
here
is
that
we
will
be
unaware
of
what
is
happening
and
every
monthly
release.
We
are
going
to
package
that
component
built
from
the
sha
without
any
tagging,
without
any
branching.
Without
anything,
it
would
just
work.
A
A
A
B
So,
just
to
add
on
that,
because
graham
kind
of
mentioned
it
this
morning
as
well
to
me-
and
he
the
way
he
phrased
it.
I
was
like
so
for
the
kubernetes
component
at
the
moment
they
open
two
and
they
manually
open
two,
mrs
to
bump
their
versions.
A
B
B
So
they,
and
then
that
means
that
they
just
have
one
mr
they
have
to
open,
but
they
still
have
to
open
a
manual
mr
to
get
the
version
file
in
place,
but
it
does
give
them
some
benefits
because
it
means
they
can
depend
up
quite
freely
and
test
quite
freely,
and
they
have
a
point
where
they
basically
say.
This
thing
is
now
ready
to
become
a
part
of
the
managed,
auto
deploys.
A
B
They
can
move
to
manage,
auto,
deploys
and
lose
one
of
those
or
they
could
do
the
next
step,
which
is
also
move
to
the
like
deploy
from
main
branch,
whatever
we
name
this
and
that
gets
rid
of
one
of
the
next
steps.
Maybe
both
the
manual
steps.
A
Yeah,
basically,
we
can,
let's
see,
let's,
let's
see
if
it
works.
Basically,
they
bump
the
version
file,
they
they
do
their
own
tagging
and
then
create
the
cng
image
and
when
the
cng
image.
So
this
is
the
second,
mr,
when
the
cng
image
is
ready,
they
can
ask
us
to
deploy
to
with
a
merge
request
on
kate's
workload
right.
So
those
are
the
three
steps
yeah.
A
We
give
them
manage
how
to
deploy;
they
don't
have
to
bump
the
version
on
kate's
workload,
because
if
we
just
roll
with
with
the
with
what
we
are
doing,
if
we
give
them
managed
versioning,
they
don't
have
to
work
with
the
cng
thing.
A
They
don't
have
to
trigger
a
cng,
build
just
to
build
their
own
image,
which
is
independent
because
it
will,
it
will
be
part
of
what
is
inside
house
deploy
and
if
we
give
them
component
deploy
from
main
branch,
they
don't
even
have
to
bump
the
version
file
in
rails
repo,
that's
kind
of
the
the
three
steps
it's
a
bit
more.
The
process
is
a
bit
less
streamlined
than
what
I
did
how
I
described
it,
because
there
are
caveats
in
between,
but
I'll.
B
Drop
in
the
the
diagram
that
matt
put
together
based
on
games
description,
because
I
think
it
we
can
probably
map
those
together
reasonably
well,
so
that
you
can,
but
essentially
we
don't
moving
to
auto
deploy
for
these
types
of
for
the
kubernetes
components,
doesn't
necessarily
eliminate
all
their
manual.
Mrs,
we
basically
skim
off
those
manual,
mrs
one,
by
one.
A
That's
it
yeah
for
for
how
many
bus
packages
is
different
because
they
are,
there
is
less
step
in
there,
but
we.
B
A
Yeah,
that's
the
so
that
that's
an
important
thing
to
highlight.
So
when
you
go
independent
deployment,
we
have
to
revisit
what
does
the
main
automated
update,
yeah
or
deploy
from
the
main
branch
yeah,
because
if
there
is
a
problem
to
solve
before
we
can
get
in
the
independent
deployment,
which
is
how
do
we
change
component
version
tracking.
B
A
B
B
Maybe
needs
to,
though,
right
like
this
is
perhaps
one
of
the
problems
that
we
will
need
to
solve.
Okay,
oh
yeah,
okay,
this
makes
more
sense.
So
how
about
we?
We
try
and
name
that
to
be
more
like
this
is
almost
like
a
dependency
right
that
all
pieces
will
need
to
well
the
dependency
exits.
But
maybe
this
piece
is
almost
something
around
this
one
actually,
probably
is
automated.
What
about
having
something
like
this
is
something
like
automated
version
management
or
something
that
kind
of
I'm
guessing.
This
is
more
or
less
metadata.
B
A
Yeah
yeah
and
can
be
something
that
we
just
see
with.
If
you
want
to
go
independent
deployment,
we
no
longer
need
this
right,
so
this
could
be
something
which
is
just
an
intermediate
step
to
bring
everything
on
a
baseline
level
where,
where
every
component
is
on
the
same
level-
and
we
can
describe
what's.
A
A
B
Okay,
that
makes
sense.
Let's
go
with
that
right,
because
that
that
fits,
I
think,
with
mentally
what
we
are
replacing.
There
is
a
manual,
mr,
so
that
I
mean
intuitively
people
get
to
see
the
two
sides
right
you're
doing
it
manually
or
you're
doing
it
automatically.
Those
are
the
two
pieces
so
that
I
think
that
makes
sense.
B
Oh
and
yeah
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about,
we've
been
calling
all
of
these
things.
Self-Serve
deployments,
but
actually
I
think,
independent
deployment
is,
is
more
accurate
because
what
we're
literally
talking
we're
not
talking
about
people
having
access
to
auto,
deploy,
pipelines
and
being
able
to
do
stuff
there
right
we
are
talking
about
your
component-
will
get
its
own
deploy.
A
B
A
I
I
think
we
we
are
fine,
we
just
managed
versioning,
because
everyone-
and
we
know
that
we
have
stable
branches.
There
are
tied
to
versions
and
tags,
so
it's
kind
of
cool.
It
includes
everything,
in
my
view,
yeah.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I
think
that's,
I
think,
if
to
me
at
least
it
feels
like
it
explains
well
enough
what
it
does.
It
sets
the
expectation
that
we
are
going
to
be
handling
all
of
that
people
don't
need
to
know
too
much
about
how
we're
going
to
handle
it.
They
just
know
they
are
not.
B
Yeah
and
what
we
can
then
start
to
do
is
perhaps
we
start
to
have
we.
I
can
already
see,
like
we
kind
of
got
three
things
emerging
out
of
this
right,
where
we've
kind
of
got
this
kind
of
almost
these,
like
capabilities,
I
guess
with
like
centralized
component
versioning
and
automated
version
updates.
B
It's
kind
of
like
centralized
stores,
and
then
we
have
managed
x
are
things
that
release
managers
will
be
doing
and
we
can
have
independent
x
for
things
that
stage
groups
could
be
doing,
but
then
we
could
start
to
talk
about
like
are
we
talking
about
independent
patch
releases,
independent
security
release
right
and
we
have.
We
already
have
some
terminology
to
kind
of
try
and
who
is
actually
going
to
be
the
person
who
is
responsible
for
for
all
of
that
stuff.
A
Yeah
because
I
think
that
in
this
view
of
being
sus
first,
what
we
mostly
care
about
is
the
current
running
version,
and
this
is
where
development
focus
should
always
be
right.
So
versioning
is
just
a
byproduct
of
this
a
given
point
in
time.
We
create
versioning
out
of
that,
but
it
becomes
important
when
we
do
support,
because
then
we
want
to
do
patches
and
things
like
that,
and
so
it's
it's
relevant.
A
There
will
be
a
lot
of
things
around
that,
but
it
should
not
be
in
developers
main
focus,
so
we
weren't
just
trying
to
streamline
the
process
as
much
as
possible
to
remove
all
the
craft
and
and
manual
step
for
us
as
well,
and
that's
for
next
quarter
or
even
the
the
one
after
that
to
just
streamline
all
the
process
after
the
this
one
right.
So
I
think
it
makes
sense.
A
B
B
I'm
happy
to
put
some
stuff
back
into
the
terminology
darkened
and
put
a
summary
on
some
of
the
epics
that
exist
already,
so
that
graham
kind
of
has
a
bit
of
a
drop
in
point
to
move
on
from
there
are
there?
The
other
thing
which
I'll
start
having
to
think
about
it?
Ties
into
something
else
which
alessia
and
I
were
chatting
about
yesterday
is
so
these
will
be
good
terms
for
us
to
start
circulating.
B
So
the
easy
first
step
is,
we
can
start
putting
them
in
the
epics
and
issues
and
yeah.
We
can
start
broadly
sort
of
putting
them
out
that
way,
but
the
other
better
thing
which
which
graham
was
really
like
good
at
highlighting
is
these
should
also
be
in
the
handbook,
and
we
should
have
you
know
ways
of
actually
explaining
here's
how
things
fit
now
I'll.
B
Take
an
action
on
that,
just
because
I'm
already
thinking
about
how
we
can
improve
the
releases
handbook
page
and
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
split
that
so
that
we
have
a
releases
page
and
we
have
a
deployments
page,
which
has
the
information
specific
to
those
two
things
and
then
there'll
be
a
I'm
going
to
guess
a
page
that
sits
above
that
which
is
almost
like,
get
out
releases
and
deployments
that
can
just
give
like
the
super
high
level
to
intro
you
into
our
specifics.
B
B
A
So
in
that
document
there
was
also
some
section
about
the
requirements
for
each
one
of
this.
I
added
some.
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
keep
working
on
requirements
in
the
google
doc,
because
there
are
some
there's
still
some
missing
piece,
I'm
thinking,
for
instance,
the
deployment
tracking
is
not
mentioned
anywhere,
but
some
of
those
things
what
is
managed
versioning
requires
that,
because
managing
the
versioning
is
checking
what's
the
current
deployed
version,
so
it's
getting
the
value
live.
A
To
have
it
means
that
that
thing
has
to
be
implemented,
so
we
either
put
it
as
a
requirement
of
that
one
or
another
step
that
is
prerequisite
to
that
one,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
so
we
that's
the
thing
we
say.
What's
what
are
the
paths
that
a
team
can
follow
to
implement
those
things
right
and.
B
A
B
So
I'm
okay
with
sort
of
draftings
going
into
the
stock.
What
we
probably
should
take
care
of
is
that
this
doc
doesn't
become
a
kind
of
parallel
thread
to
the
analysis,
issues
and
kind
of
all
the
other
discussion
issues.
I'm
super
conscious
that
we
are
going
to
be
very
constrained
for
the
next
month
or
so
with
matt
being
out.
So
one
thing,
graham,
is
going
to
start
working
on,
is
putting
together
ideas
for
how
we
can
get
pages
into
managed
versioning,
it's
going
to
set
up
that
release
and
epic.
B
So
I
think
probably
at
that
point
we
can.
We
can
check.
We
have
all
the
requirements
and
use
that
as
a
kind
of
model
to
go
out,
and
perhaps
we
do
something
similar
when
we
move
cars
to
the
managed,
auto
deploys
and
from
there
we
can
sort
of
at
that
point
discuss
like
what
are
all
the
requirements
and
how
do
we?
B
How
do
we
then
turn
that
into
something
which
other
teams
can
can
pick
up
from?
But
if
you
want
to
like,
if
there
are
things
you're
like
want
to
sort
of
make
sure
we
don't
miss,
feel
free.
If
you
want
to
just
quickly
drop
them
in
that
terms
and
definitions,
I
I'm
considering
it
to
be
very
much
a
draft
sketch
paddy
type
of
place
since
it's
not
easily
shareable.
B
B
Cool
and
yeah
one
thing
we
should
probably
do
I
mean
we
don't
have
to
do
it
as
part
of
these
okrs
but
say
towards
the
end
of
the
quarter
or
or
next
quarter.
I
actually
have
a
thing
yeah,
where
we
put
together.
The
here
is
the
documentation
so
that
a
stage
group
wanting
to
do
x
doesn't
have
to
come
and
ask
us
all
this
stuff.
They
they
can
actually
find
out
a
lot
of
it
themselves
and
know
here
are
the
steps
I
should
go
through
in
order
to
pick
up
each
piece.
A
A
I
have
a
question
for
myra,
I
mean
I
mean
I'm
asking
to
you
my
round.
It's
fine!
If
you
don't
know
the
answer,
because
I
don't
know
as
well
so
so
is
it
the
question
on
the
on
the
document
yeah,
but
I'm
going
to
expand.
A
A
Also
have
amy
aware
of
this,
so
I
want
to
be
clear
here
with
everyone
in
the
team
and
watching
the
recording
that
when
we
talk
about
managed
versioning,
we
are
at
the.
There
is
an
entry
level,
which
is
what
we
define
here,
which
is
release
tools,
takes
care
of
tagging,
changelog
building
branches.
A
A
You
would
just
know
that
you
have
the
stable
relinch
branch
ready.
If
you
want
to
pick
something
into
the
next
patch
release,
you
merge
it.
You
merge
it
in
this
table
branch
and
the
tool
will
release
for
you.
No
automated
picking
same
there's
no
peak
into
a
deploy,
obviously,
because
that's
completely
different
process
security
releases
being
even
the
more
complex
thing
again.
If
you
emerge
it,
it
will
be
released,
but
then
the
version
bumping
and
everything
will
go
into
the
situation
like
the
the
guitar.
I
think
italy
has
some
level
of
integration.
A
B
I
think
that
makes
sense
celestial
eric.
I
think
I,
let's
certainly
tackle
these
things
in
iterations.
I
think
you
know,
keeping
managed
versioning
to
be
specific
to
manage
versioning
will
will
help
us
get
more
components
over
to
that.
But
let's
I
just
put
down
some
of
your
notes,
but
please
drop
down
a
well.
B
It
will
come
out
actually
when
scream
has
got
the
pages,
epic
a
little
bit
more
specked
out,
we
should
make
sure
it's
clear
on
there,
because
what
I'd
like
us
to
do
is
actually
be
able
to
use
these
epics
to
go
to
the
teams
and
be
like
hey.
You
know,
like
we
have
a
thing
move
pages
to
manage:
versioning,
here's
what
you
will
get,
here's
what
you
won't
get,
here's
what
you
maybe
will
lose
by
adopting
this
process.
B
B
Awesome,
luckily,
we
have
super
simple
relief
processors,
so
everything
is
fine.
B
Nope,
okay,
fantastic!
Thank
you!
So
much
for
the
discussion
and
yeah
well
I'll
put
some
stuff
around
so
graham
can
can
comment
and
if,
if
he's
got
any
concerns
or
additional
ideas,
we
can
continue
the
discussion
async,
but
I
think
we
we've
got
a
good
start.
I
think
so.
Yeah
great
work
enjoy
the
rest
of
your
days.
Okay,.