►
From YouTube: Keptn Community Meeting - Oct 12, 2021 - Part II
Description
Meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y7a6uaN8fwFJ7IRnvtxSfgz-OGFq6u7bKN6F7NDxKPg/edit
Learn more: https://keptn.sh
Get started with tutorials: https://tutorials.keptn.sh
Join us in Slack: https://slack.keptn.sh
Star us on Github: https://github.com/keptn/keptn
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/keptnProject
Sign up to our newsletter: https://bit.ly/KeptnNews
A
Really
very
full,
therefore,
I
would
not
like
to
have
an
another
topic
on
the,
but
if
no
one
would
like
would
take
like
this
and
if
it
and
if
we
need
it
for
some
for
some
reasons,
then
I
can
try
to
put
this.
B
C
D
So
some
items
are
reasonable
anyway.
For
me,
the
biggest
question
is:
is
bombs
because
it
requires
updates
in
our
pipelines
plus
doing
proper
response
requires
a
lot
of
updates.
It's
easy
to
put
a
dependency.
Three
four
npm
for
I'll
go
along,
but,
for
example,
what
we
include
in
the
docker
images
Etc.
It
becomes
a
bit
more
tricky.
D
D
Actually
so
we
would
need
to
to
prototype
as
bomb
generation
for
caption.
C
D
Would
say
that,
generally
it's
a
nice
challenge,
it
does
some
more
or
less
so
for
life
cycle
controller
I
think
that
we
need
to
have
in
generation
as
boom
office
bombs
out
of
the
box,
because
it
becomes
a
major
requirement
for
adoption
these
days,
but
yeah
for
Captain
itself
yeah.
It
would
be
nice
and
my
understanding
of
the
could
more
or
less
use
of
the
same
pipeline.
B
D
So
basically,
yeah
I
could
probably
create
a
prototype
for
his
bombs.
I.
Did
it
a
few
times
before
the
question
is
that
how
integrated
to
integrate
it
into
the
risk
pipeline,
so
I
will
need
some
help
from
Giovanni
and
maybe
more
to
get
it
reviewed
and
landed.
B
A
D
So
the
problem
is
to
create
writer's
mom
for
container
image
requests,
not
just
your
code,
but
also
what
is
included
into
the
image
and
for
Docker.
It
has
been
a
problems,
usually
I'm,
not
sure
how
it
would
be
for
Captain,
but
I
can
try.
D
So
then
I
suggest
we
check
in
next
week.
So
if
we
can
do
this
foundation
and
then
we
can
push
it
over
and
force,
basically,
it
would
be
quite
important
because
yeah,
the
the
real
situation
right
now
is
that
we
have
no
budget
for
captain
at
all
in
terms
of
cash,
and
sometimes
cash
is
useful.
So
for
me,
yeah
I
have
a
participating
in
such
projects.
Etc
would
at
least
create
a
kind
of
piggy
bank
for
some
level
effects
crowdfunding
so
that
we
can
put
some
items
if
needed.
D
E
C
E
D
Yeah,
so
they
do
some
upgrade
work
for
that
and
that
keep
going
they
have
secured
Islam.
So
basically
they
suggest
that
during
and
cubecon,
if
you
submit
some
patches
Etc,
we
give
you
some
Shock.
C
D
Basically
is
a
part
of
sonotype
sponsorship:
yeah,
okay,
so
I'll
take
it
offline
and
yeah.
Let's
see
so
other
topics
we
have
on
the
list,
so
we
are
starting
the
governing
port
for
Captain.
So
we
had
a
few
discussions.
But
basically
the
question
here
is
that,
since
we're
incubating
project,
we
need
to
stop
our
formal
governance
for
Captain.
We
expected
to
do
it
within
one
year,
I
believe
after
reaching
the
incubating
stage,
so
I
would
like
to
kick
it
off.
D
The
problem
for
us
is
that
if
you
want
to
have
a
board,
we
need
to
have
people
who
want
to
be
on
this
board
and
for
that
yeah
there
is
strong
expectation,
at
least
from
me
that
none
of
organization
has
more
than
50
percent
of
seeds.
So,
basically,
if
you
take
a
minimum
worth
of
five
people,
it
would
be
that
we
need
to
find
three
people
from
outside
Donna
trees.
D
Who
would
be
interesting
to
interested
to
be
on
the
board
and
if
you
go
with
seven,
we
need
to
follow
these
people
at
least
modern
Mary,
of
course.
So
this
is
basically
why
I'm
doing
some
prep
work.
Maybe
the
question
for
you
Brett
whether
you
would
be
potentially
interested
as
an
active
contributor
to
cncf
and
Captain
I
will
be
also
reaching
to
our
advisor
report
to
see
whether
somebody
would
be
potentially
interested
to
be
on
the
governing
board,
but
yeah.
So
for
me
it
was.
D
The
first
question
is
to
get
a
list
of
people
who
will
be
potentially
interested
so
to
make
it
feasible
and
then
I
will
you
know.
Probably
if
we
are
fine,
I
will
come
up
with
a
charter
proposal,
so
we
will
need
to
Define
how
we
do
the
elections
and
we
need.
We
will
need
to
Define
all
the
charts
for
the
governing
board.
It's
not
a
big
deal.
Well,
I
mean
I.
Did
it
a
few
times
already,
so
it
will
be
just
mostly
copy
and
paste
for
me.
D
But
the
first
question
is
finding
interesting
people
to
be
on
the
board.
To
participate
in
the
elections
is
something
a
bit
challenging.
So
if
anyone
is
interested
to
participate
and
you're
watching
this
recording
is
definitely
a
good
time
to
step
up
and
I.
Will
we
also
putting
in
the
community
so
no
need
to
answer
right?
Now
but
just
think
about
it.
D
Well,
this
is
a
good
question
because
how
I
see
it
at
the
moment,
so
captains
should
rather
have
open
governance.
So,
basically,
regardless
of
whether
you
have
if
I
maintenance,
title
reviewers
title
or
whatever
title,
you
basically
are
fully
eligible
to
participate
in
all
aspects
of
community
governance.
D
D
We
have
never
had
it
in
Captain
and
hopefully
it
will
remain
the
same
and
yes,
secondly,
yeah
if
there
is
a
lack
of
consensus
in
the
community,
for
example,
for
some
major
agreements
of
example,
Captain
LCS
scope
Etc,
so
the
governing
board
could
step
in
basically
to
build
the
consensus
or
maybe
even
to
enforce
the
decision
if
it's
how
the
chat
is
written.
So
for
me,
these
the
only
use
cases
where
we
would
need
this
board
and
the
rest
yeah,
it's
quite
abstract.
D
So
what
I
so
I
basically
took
the
text
from
original
issue
created
by
Jurgen
but
yeah.
There
are
some
items
like
driving
the
project,
roads
map,
facilitating
decisions,
get
on
in
the
chart,
yeah
and
various
kinds
of
promoting
adoption
of
project
Etc.
But
all
of
that
has
no
time
label
on
that.
D
Okay,
so
just
think
about
it,
so
I
follow
the
discussion
we
had
previously
so
I
create
new
topics
as
GitHub
discussions,
because
we
still
have
no
history
on
track,
so
I
will
be
putting
a
bit
more
topics,
including
some
controversial
ones.
D
D
Yeah
so
please
feel
free
to
participate
and
actually
another
yeah
I'll
accelerate
a
bit
to
save
everyone's
time.
So
another
discussion
we
have
right
now
is
Captain
Lighthouse
service.
So
basically
it's
a
continuation
of
the
presentation.
I
shared
with
the
community
and
I
would
like
to
ask
for
permission
to
create
a
Sandbox
repository
so
that
I
could
assemble
a
kind
of
road
map
ideas
there
and
yeah
I
see
a
question.
Giovanni
I
will
answer
that,
but
yeah.
D
So
basically,
I
would
like
to
discuss
what
Lighthouse
would
be
whether
you
want
to
embark
on
it
a
code
device
so
right
now
the
project
continues
in
a
no
commitment
mode.
But
if
anyone
is
interested,
I
think
that
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
repository
so
that
we
cannot
put
some
documentation,
ideas,
tasks
there
and
maybe
he
started
reaching
there.
D
And
yeah
one
item:
that's
basically
probably
the
best
way
to
discuss
it.
Right
now
is
Under
the
Umbrella
of
up
life
cycle
working
group.
D
So
the
reason
for
that
is
because
for
Captain
Lighthouse
the
results
SLI
and
SLO
service
been
created
by
the
team,
so
I
just
want
to
build
some
alignment
between
these
efforts
because
for
current
Lighthouse,
if
you
look
at
the
slide
deck,
it's
also
the
intentions
to
build
it
around
operators
in
the
future,
so
basically
that
from
Captain
code
base
and
then
at
the
move
it
completely
to
githubs
and
operator
mode
for
management.
D
So
it
wouldn't
be
just
how
it's
implemented
the
campaign
right
now.
But
for
that
we
need
to
discuss
whether
we
actually
do
that
and
if
so,
how
it's
implemented.
D
A
If
we,
if
we
talk
about
the
latter
service,
will
we'll
expect
some
code
in
a
repository
I
think
so
we
should
have
a
working
group
which
defines
it
and
we
should
have
the
implementation
on
the
other
side.
D
Yeah,
if
we
agree
to
roll
with
it,
let's
see
towards
the
Prototype,
it's
definitely
what
needs
to
happen
again.
How
happen,
for
example,
one
of
the
ways
we
basically
split
out
bits
of
the
captain
core,
basically
doing
a
hard
Fork
removing
all
not
necessary
part,
so
it
would
be
just
observability
providers,
it
would
be
bits
of
Lighthouse,
API,
service,
I,
guess
and
maybe
some
other
beats,
but
it
will
be
just
probably
a
fork
of
Captain.
Another
approach
is
to
take
what
is
currently
happening.
Can
life
cycle
controller?
E
A
The
first
step
of
the
lifecycle
controller:
there
will
be
nowhere's
land
Oslo
server,
this
in
respect
of
what's
happening
for
the
for
for
the
LA
for
the
laptop
service,
because
it
wouldn't,
it
would
not
make
sense
to
to
re-implement
everything
we
have
there.
Yeah.
C
B
Yeah
I
just
want
to
I
think
the
idea
is
there
and
early
has
been
discussing
it
since
last
couple
of
weeks
and
I
wanted
to
help
out.
Basically
so
I
wanted
to
I
wanted
us
to
drive
it
forward
and
maybe
start
with
some
sort
of
prototyping
I
went
through
the
open,
SLR
repository
and
I.
Think
we
need
to
do
a
it
might
need
work
to
do
there
as
well
and
there's
a
lot
of
things
involved.
So
as
like,
let's
get
started
with
the
simplest
thing.
C
D
D
I'm
not
sure
whether
I
will
be
able
to
call
the
Prototype
quickly
for
that,
let's
see
but
yeah
at
least
some
design
work
such
as
they
could
work
on
at
the
moment.
E
There
is
that
better
yeah
there
isn't
much
to
show.
Actually
first
question
is:
does
anybody
object
to
burying
the
old,
quick
start
guide
and
renaming
what
we
now
call
explore,
Captain
to
be
quick
start
for
LTS.
E
The
old
quick
start
does
not
work
the
killer,
Coda
exercise,
that's
in
LTS
has
much
more.
Has
everything
that's
in
the
current
tutorial
and
then
some
and
it's
much
easier?
B
D
Think
that,
for
now
we
just
need
to
report
all
that's,
not
working
I
think
that
it
will
be
still
important
once
we
get
to
LCS
to
update
what
we
had
in
the
quick
start
guide
to
make
it
operational
for
1.0
but
yeah
for
now,
because
category
or
killer
code
doesn't
replace
all
the
use
cases
so
killer
coder,
for
example,
doesn't
explain
how
to
install
captain
and
the
full
tutorial
actually
does
it.
E
For
a
demonstration
it
does
not
do
how
you
would
do
a
text:
environment,
okay
and
they
I
mean
I-
would
say
that
the
document
I,
don't
tutorials-
are
very,
very
difficult
to
create
and
maintain
they're
a
lot
of
work
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
tutorial
approach
is
necessary.
There
I'd
much
rather
get
our
installation
documentation
up
to
Snuff
and
make
it
so
that
that
has
instructions
that
people
can
clearly
follow
and
I
think
we've
got
to
start
on
that.
We're.
D
To
the
right,
get
the
installation
get
a
good
bunch
of
improvements
so,
basically,
for
now
you
would
rather
remove
tutorials
at
all,
so
to
have
a
quick
start,
have
documentation
and
basically
all
tutorials
would
go
to
the
archive
for
now.
E
Right
I
mean
eventually
I'd
like
to
have
like
a
more
advanced
tutorial,
where,
instead
of
doing
like
a
minimal,
SLI
and
SLO
for
go
in
and
do
something
really
interesting
with
them,
I'd
like
to
have
some
tutorials
on
more
all
of
our
tutorials
are
sort
of
targeted
at
brand
new
kept
and
curious
people.
E
There
are
Advanced
topics
that
I
think
are
worthy
of
a
tutorial,
but
I,
don't
know
that
installation
is
I,
mean
the
the
installation
tutorial
you
get
into
all
sorts
of
issues.
You
know
involved
with
setting
up
a
local
environment
and
I.
Don't
know
that
that's
worth
the
tutorial
emphasis
I
think
it
could
be
done
more
efficiently
in
documentation,
so
so
I'm
going
to
put
that
as
and
we
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
good
content
to
support
people
doing
installation.
We
can
decide
later
fail
a
documentation
right.
E
E
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
restructuring
of
the
documentation,
which
is
to
basically
get
everything
at
the
same
level.
So
Concepts
and
installation,
and
all
that
stuff
will
be
at
the
same
installation
as
manage
project
and
operate
and
Define
project
the
stuff
that
is
currently
under
the
release.
Specific
stuff
I
think
I've
done
the
writing
to
make
sure
that
we're
okay
with
that
there
is
even
a
possibility
that
we
may
be
able
to
go
to
the
system
of
having
the
URLs
be
latest,
rather
than
really
specific
for
LTS.
E
If
anybody
objects
to
that
speak
up,
the
big
question
is
whether
we
pull
whether
we
take
everything,
that's
under
0.19
point
x
and
for
LTS
pull
that
out
to
the
same
level
so
that
we'd
go
down
and
have
Concepts
installation
operate,
manage
Define
Etc
showing
on
that
home
page
and
then
under
that
the
0.19
0.18,
the
historical
stuff.
The
other
alternative
is
that
we
create
an
LTS
heading
at
the
on
the
landing
page
and
we
move
everything.
E
So
that
is
the
question
we
are
as
soon
as
and
but
my
hope
is
that
well
by
by
getting
this
all
at
one
level.
It
will
make
the
move
to
a
new
dock
engine,
much
easier,
that
we
will,
sometime
in
the
not
too
distant
future,
be
able
to
silently
move
the
LTS
documentation
under
the
new
dock
engine,
but
it'd
be
pretty
non-disruptive
to
users.
E
It
will
still
look
the
same
and
at
that
point,
but
when
we
get
under
the
new
dock
engine
we
expect
to
pull
out
the
historical
releases
and
have
those
on
a
drop
down.
So
there'll
be
a
drop.
You
know,
there'll
be
a
drop
down
place
where
you
can
say
older
releases
and
you
can
click
that
and
select
an
older
documentation
set.
If
you
so
desire.
E
C
D
So
for
the
structure,
I
think
that
you're
basically
for
us,
if
we
make
some
space
on
the
root
level
for
other
sub-project,
so
like
less
cycle
controller
for
sure,
maybe
a
lighthouse,
maybe
something
else
in
the
future
like
specifications
which
so,
for
example.
Currently
we
also
have
specifications
which
are
versioned
independently
from
Captain.
It
would
also
make
sense
to
eventually
pull
them
in
into
the
documentation
and
yeah.
So
for
that
wait.
E
D
I'm
not
sure
so,
basically
so
for
documentation.
So,
regardless
of
the
recommendation
engine
we
may
want
to
put
publish
specifications
on
the
documentation
route,
then,
basically,
my
proposal
would
be
to
go
with
Russian
Truth
for
Captain
one
to
zero.
So,
basically,
all
the
references
Concepts,
which
are
currently
on
the
top
level
would
move
along
with
other
content
under
the
version
and
what
is
proposed
in
the
current
cap
for
Captain
LCS.
So,
basically,
this
version
becomes
a
kind
of
living
document.
D
So
unless
there
are
massive
breaking
changes
requiring
a
new
version
Baseline,
we
just
keep
improving
it.
So,
for
example,
if
we
release
Captain
1.1
but
probably
includes
some
changes,
that
needs
to
be
documented,
specifically
for
this
version
we
just
put
a
notice
specifically
for
this
version.
Instead
of
creating
a
full
copy
of
the
documentation
and
maintaining
two
copies
indefinitely.
D
It
becomes
a
problem
with.
There
are
new
changes
every
month
so
like
we
had
before,
but
if
you
basically
press
it
with
assumption
that
Captain
after
each
and
Commando
text
becomes
more
stable,
then
yeah
I
think
that
it
should
be
fine.
B
E
So
so
we'll
go
so
so
the
main
docs
page
I
will
come
in
and
I
will
not
see.
Quick
Start
I
will
not
see
I'll,
not
I
will
see
LTS
and
0.19
and
0.18
and
roadmap,
and
news
and
I
forget
all
the
details.
But
that's
basically
what
will
be
there
and
then
under
LTS
I
will
see
the
full
documentation
set
of
Concepts
and
installation
and
operate.
E
E
E
It
all
me
here
now:
okay,
five
minutes,
you
know
what
we
can
do
these
other
two
in
five
minutes
they
are
basically
heads
up
and
I
am
standing
in
for
other
people.
E
First
is
speaking
of
tutorials.
We
have
the
tutorial
page.
It
has
10
tutorials
on
it.
I
think
the
vast
majority
do
not
work,
but
Adam
proposed
that
we
make
a
little
project.
E
So
we
have
a
project
created,
there's
a
link
there.
There
is
an
issue
for
each
of
them
where
we
are
asking
people
to
adopt
one
of
them
to
go
through
and
do
an
evaluation.
E
Try
to
run
the
tutorial
and
record
where
it
breaks
Etc
and
make
a
recommendation
as
to
whether
it
should
be
fixed,
redone
under
killer
Coda
or
just
deep,
Sixth
and
never
heard
from
again,
and
then
we
will
proceed
under
that
project
to
will
create
other
issues
to
do
the
actual
work
to
implement
that
Adam
couldn't
be
here
this
week,
but
we
just
say
or
yesterday,
for
those
of
you
in
Europe
hope,
is
that
two
weeks
from
today
for
the
community
meeting,
we
will
have
some
recommendations
that
we
can
discuss
and
make
sure
we
have
consensus
on
the
disposition
and
move
forward
and
feel
free
to
chime
in.
E
If
anybody
wants
is
interested
in
them,
we
have
owners
for
most
of
them,
there's
a
couple
of
very
interesting
ones
that
do
not
yet
have
owners
if
you're
interested
in
the
project.
E
The
second
one
Simon
was
also
unable
to
join
us
today,
but
he
is
looking
into
the
new
Doc
engine
issues
get
we
need
to
get
an
actual
handle.
We
have
some
work
done
on
docosaurus
for
Google
summer
of
code.
E
E
We
also
have
some
concerns
and
he's
going
to
be
investigating
whether
docosaurus
does
have
an
add-on
that
support
it
may
not
have
the
strength
to
do
what
we
want
to
do
and
it
may
be
I'm,
not
a
tools
person.
This
was
my
impression
and
Simon's
sort
of
of
the
opinion
that
the
only
option
out
there
that
does
this
extremely
well
is
antora,
which
means
converting
all
the
content
to
ASCII
doctor
and
asking
everybody
to
work
and
ask
a
doctor
in
the
future.
E
To
me,
I,
don't
think,
there's
so
much
difference
between
asky
doctor
and
mark
down
that
that
will
be
a
real
problem
but
sort
of
a
heads
up
and
again
I
think
at
our
next
community
meeting.
Simon
may
have
some
more
specifics
to
share
with
us,
but
and
a
warning
so
and
unless
anybody
wants
to
discuss
any
of
those
I
think
I'm
done
and
we've
got
two
minutes
left
in
the
meeting.
C
D
So
thanks
a
lot
for
the
update,
yeah
think
that
we
can
slowly
press
it.
D
B
D
So
thanks
a
lot
to
everyone.
I
will
again
bring
up
the
agenda
and
the
organization
so
that
we
make
this
meeting
more
efficient
for
everyone
and
actually
get
more
participants
because
yeah
historically,
we
had
something
like
five
or
six
participants.
There
I
basically
invited
benadry's
team
and
basically
discovered
that
most
of
this
meeting
is
done
at
resting
at
this
time.
Right
so
definitely
didn't
go
as
planned.