►
From YouTube: Geo Scheduling Call - 2019-12-06
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
C
A
B
A
Yeah
I
think
this
is.
This
is
really
good
and
I
hope
that
we
can
close
out
all
of
the
remaining
issues
to
release
this
fully
in
in
12.6,
so
I
think.
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
Started
out-
and
this
is
like
all
the
different
things
that
actually
needed
to
happen
and
still
need
to
happen
so
and
really
I
think
this
is
sort
of
a
a
case
study
for
me
as
how
much
complexity
can
actually
be
hidden
in
in
these
things,
because,
even
while
we
were
doing
it,
we
were
discovering
new
things
that
we
needed
to
like
actually
do
and
so
I
think.
That's
quite
quite
interesting.
I.
B
Agree
very
much
like
you
can
also
see
here
how
many
milestones
it's
taken
to
get
through
it
as
well
from
twelve
point
four
to
twelve
point.
Six,
yes,
and
even
the
verification
isn't
completed
so
there's
gonna
be
twelve
point,
seven
yeah
and
from
one
issue
that
was
not
even
a
five
I,
don't
even
think
about.
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
C
B
Fabian
to
your
question
about
the
release
post
items,
I
think
yes,
please
to
move
them
to
assign
them
to
me,
but
I
think
also
maybe
after
this
call,
we
should
just
go
through
if
there's
any,
they
can
just
be
merged
now
anyway,
because
like
now
that
this
one
has
been
finished,
I
suppose
this
cannot
be
merged.
Today,
no.
A
B
B
Okay,
next
one
this
one
I
closed
up,
because
it
was
about
getting
Gia
working
on
staging
and
between
Craig
and
Douglas
and
ash
and
myself.
There
was
just
some
confusion
as
to
exactly
what
this
was
required
for
so
I've
just
closed
out
the
issue
to
stop
the
confusion
and
the
discussion
for
this
continues
on
another
issue:
yeah,
so
I'm
just
going
to
mark
this
as
just
take
it
off
the
board
as
well,
so
we
didn't
actually
do
anything
about
it.
We
just
move
the
discussion
somewhere
else.
B
C
B
There
that's
really
interesting,
okay,
so
how
we're
not
gonna
lose
this?
Do
we.
B
A
A
B
Sorry
so
I
think
that
this
was
supposed
to
say,
13.0,
right
and
then
I
think.
B
B
A
B
B
B
Okay,
okay,
so
I'll
double
check
why
they
want
slim
verification
and
what
is
it
will
require?
There
I'll
believe
that
a
lot
open
this
one
this
one
here,
a
git
clone
on
secondary
fetches,
the
elephant's
files
from
primary
ash
did
both
of
the
em
ours.
They
were
both
merged
and
I.
Think
that's
a
liver,
tested,
locally
and
works
as
expected,
but
there's
not
a
tree
chest
okay,
so
we
have
to
run
it,
install
it
and
taste.
It
still,
I
think.
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
Okay,
this
one
was
being
bounced
between
Gabriel
and
tone
busy
getting
the
they
were
investigating
and
stuff
on
the
sequel
queries.
This
one
is
the
proof
of
concept
that
it's
with
a
self-service.
I
know
that
term
was
going
to
put
up
his
thoughts
in
a
merge
request.
I
haven't
gone
into
that
yet
to
see
if
they're
there
yet,
but
I
will
follow
up
on
that,
and
that's
the
one
that
we
have
recently
opened
with
the
forum
ours
that
are
back
backed
up
or
back
to
back
sorry
that
are
back
to
back
there.
B
So
looking
at
the
blocked
column,
next,
the
verification
of
design
repositories
is
blocked
on
the
proof
of
concept.
Adding
monitoring
for
staging
is
blocked
on
getting
the
remote
up
and
running
in
staging
which
itself
is
blocked
on
the
replication,
which
is
another
story
this
one.
All
that's
from
waiting
here
is
for
the
issues
to
still
be
created,
no
I'm
wrong.
This
is
a
different
issue.
B
B
B
Okay,
so
Gabriel
picked
this
up
three
days
ago:
okay,
so
I'm.
Assuming
he's
on
that.
This
is
the
proof
of
concept
about
the
single
source
of
truth.
When
I
spoke
to
Mike
on
Wednesday,
he
said
that
he
was
going
to
move
forward
with
writing
more
tests
with
us
and
to
try
and
wrap
this
up
so
that
we
can
push
that
along
scheduling
the
design
repository
sync
Valerie
said
he
was.
He
was
working
on.
This
just
needs
to
continue
with
that
now.
This
one
has
been
here
for
a
while
I'm.
A
B
A
B
To
correct
some
errors
and
make
it
just
more
in
line
with
the
proper
standards,
this
one
about
replication
is
proving
fun,
because
it's
a
similar
problem
that
we
have
noticed
on
using
a
specific
kind
of
replication
on
production
as
well.
So
crazy
is
moving
there
forward
with
the
infrastructure
team.
Well,.
A
B
There's
a
potential
for
data
loss
that
exists
and
is
actually
like.
The
likelihood
of
occurrence
is
not
blow
so
they're.
Looking
at
how
exactly
what's
happening
here
and
they've
gotten
our
Postgres
consultants
to
take
a
look
as
well
just
to
try
and
move
their
forward,
because
it's
a
it's
becoming
more
and
more
urgent
for
them
to
figure
out.
What's
going
on,
I
think.
B
B
Which
I'm,
assuming
isn't,
is
being
actively
looked
at
now,
if
she's
been
mentioning
things
and
other
issues.
Yesterday,
okay,
logging
of
sink
services,
I
know
that
Ash
was
asking
questions
about
this
overnight,
so
yeah,
there's
a
work-in-progress
mi,
that's
up
there
and
creating
the
note
for
staging
I'm
catching
up
with
Douglas
later
today
to
find
out
where
they
are
with
us
and
how
problematic
or
how
blocked
it
is
by
the
replication
issue.
If
they
can
get
to
a
certain
point
and
then
just
leave
its
waiting
for
the
replication
to
resolve
and.
A
A
A
A
Yeah
I
mean
the
first
thing
to
note
here:
is
that
there's
plenty
of
things
in
development,
so
I
think
we
should
be
a
little
bit
mindful
on
what
we
actually
add
on
here.
So
I
think
this
is
correct
right.
This
should
be
up
next,
because
I
think
we
should
tackle
that
this
one
here,
minimize
steps
to
run
I
mean
I
think
this
is
this
is
at
this
point
and
actually
I
would
say
we
should
probably
they
do
these
investigations.
A
This
year,
I
would
really
like
to
see
I
think
this
is
important
for
our
next
next
steps
in
the
our
and
I
think
you
highlighted
that
in
a
way
this
year
is
almost
like
directly
related
to
this,
that
they
need
to
happen
kind
of
together,
or
at
least
they
they
have
a
very
strong
relation.
So
I
think
these
two
are
are
nice
and,
as
you
also
pointed
out,
they
are
self-contained
right.
They
have
no
dependencies
yeah.
B
The
investigates
how
the
data
is
transferred
is
related
to
either
the
HK
version
or
the
single-mode
version
of
that
of
the
plan.
Failover
test,
I,
just
thought
of
doing
it
at
the
same
time
makes
sense
because
you
going
through
the
process
anyway,
you
most
will
look
at
what's
happening
from
the
data
perspective.
B
Yes,
you
know
we're
we're
going
through
the
working
notes
right
now
to
figure
out
what
needs
to
be
there
that
one
number
two
I
think
can
go
back
into
the
open
column,
because
while
it
is
the
next
thing
to
happen,
we
aren't
going
to
get
there
anytime
soon.
Okay,
I
say
any
time
soon
we're
not
going
to
get
there
in
the
next
week.
I'll.
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
We
worked
on
a
little
bit
last
week
with
Persinger,
so
this
is
ready
from
a
design
perspective.
Correct,
yes,
okay
and
I.
Think
in
terms
of
like
solution,
validation,
the
only
thing
that
we
actually
need
to
do
is
to
say
that,
yes,
you
know
this
is
the
solution
that
we
are
looking
for,
which
I
am
happy
with
so
I,
don't
think
this.
This
needs
to
be
broken
down
any
further,
either
so
I'm
just
going
to
move
this
into
the
scheduling
phase
as
well.
If
you
don't,
if
you
don't
mind.
B
B
A
It's
a
it's
a
smaller,
smaller
item.
It
can
be
picked
up
by
by
sec
and
you
can
move
it
over
to
two
active
whenever
you
feel
is,
is
appropriate,
yeah,
so
great
work
some
drink
for
for
the
design
on
it.
I
think
this
is
small,
but
we
like
we
can
move
it
through
the
system
relatively
quickly,
which
I
think
is
really
nice
to
see.
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
else
in
here
right
now.
That
needs
to
await
that's
actually
not
true.
What
about
yeah.
B
A
A
A
C
Mean
about
for
this
week,
but
I
can
do
it
for
the
next
week,
because
for
this
week
what
I
did
was
about
the
research
like
I
discussed
with
you
yesterday
regarding
the
maintenance
mode
and
also
for
the
radical
design
changes
that
I
like
to
do
in
the
future.
I
started
to
looking
into
competitors
so
I'm
kind
of
like
grabbing
their
design,
spying
on
their
UI,
and
then
this
is
what
I'm
doing
so.
C
C
C
A
You
mentioned
we
had
a.
We
had
a
discussion
about
the
maintenance
mode,
which
is
one
of
the
kudex
things
that
we
are
going
to
look
at,
but
and
from
a
technical
level.
We
have
a
PC
scheduled,
but
I.
There
is
some
front-end
work
to
be
done
and
there's
also
sort
of
design
work
for
how
users
will
actually
interact
with
that
maintenance
mode.
How
that
will
be
displayed
all
of
those
things
and
so
I
think
within
December.
C
A
A
Maybe
for
for
this
call,
so
I
got
an
update
from
James
regarding
the
LFS.
What
networks
so
I
think
this
is
not
being
recognized.
As
you
know,
a
high
priority
bug
fix
that
was
moved
to
12.7,
so
the
next
planned
release
and
cheney's
is
asking
if
this
needs
to
be
broken
down
a
little
bit
further,
because
it
seems
like
a
significant
amount
of
work.
I
think
that's
likely
true.
For
us.
It
may
mean
that
there
are
potentially
a
couple
of
things
that
we
could
help
with,
but
we
should
have
that
discussion.