►
From YouTube: kubernetes sig-aws 20190419
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
Hello:
everyone:
it
is
Friday
April,
19th
mm-hm.
This
is
Sogeti
because
I
am
your
moderator
and
facilitator
today,
just
in
Santa
Barbara
I
work
at
Google
a
reminder
that
this
meeting
is
being
recorded.
Mm-Hmm
excuse
me
reminder
this
meeting
is
being
recorded
and
will
be
put
on
the
internet
and
please
be
mindful
of
our
code
of
conduct
at
the
agenda.
I
will
place
a
link
to
our
agenda
into
the
chat.
Please
do
feel
free
to
add
items
to
the
agenda.
We
don't
have
a
lot
on
there.
A
It's
holiday
weekend
in
much
of
the
world,
so
I
don't
know
whether
we
will
have
a
ton
on
the
agenda.
We
also
don't
have
a
demo
today
because
of
holidays,
and
please
do
add
items
to
the
agenda.
Please
put
your
name
on
there.
If
you
would
like
to
it's
helpful
for
people
that
watch
the
video
to
tie
back
to
who
you
are,
and
otherwise
we
can
kick
off.
Kick
off
the
first
item
on
the
agenda:
Mike
and
Tiffany.
You
have
a
topic
around
backporting
credential
provider,
bug
fixes
for
ECR.
B
A
B
Yeah,
it's
kind
of
chunky
yeah.
Basically,
there
were
a
couple
bugs
that
and
it's
like.
Basically,
if
you
didn't
have,
if
it
didn't
pop
correctly,
get
your
credentials,
it
would
cash
it
no
credentials
for
12
hours
and
you
are
stuck
and
you'd
have
to
either
like
create
some
script
to
handle
it
or
a
cessation
and
restart
couplet.
And
so
that's
like
it's
been
an
issue
for
a
while
that
doesn't
mean
it's
not
important.
It
just
hadn't
been
fixed
and
then
another
one
is
for
your.
B
The
Google
go
container
registry
repo.
It
is
using
the
different
credential
providers
and
right
now,
John
Johnson's
having
to
make
a
patch
for
our
stuff
because
there's
no
in
it,
which
is
also
listed
in
that
PR
so
between
him
having
to
patch
back
to
112
and
it
breaking
it
like
if
it
and
then
dealing
with
the
whole
like
12
hours
of
caching.
Caching,
yes
back
port
it
to
one
basically,
if
we
could
get
it
back
to
112.
Yes,.
C
A
B
So
the
second
one
there's
the
unrelated
specifically
to
the
kubernetes
Reaper.
So
there's
a
go
container
registry
and
only
fine
yeah.
So
it's
Google's
flash
go
Google
/,
go
container,
ready,
container
registry
and
there's
an
issue
basically
that
it's
expecting
to
register
all
the
current
dental
providers,
but
there's
no
in
it.
So
it
works
for
everyone,
except
for
AWS.
C
I
guess
a
little
more
color
behind
that
what
happens
for
the
AWS
credentials
provider
is
that
the
cloud
provider
registers
it
because
previously
the
AWS
credential
provider,
one
instance,
was
registered
per
AWS
region
and
those
AWS
regions
were
only
listed
in
the
cloud
provider.
The
fix
that
we're
proposing
backporting
eliminates
the
region
dependency
and
the
end
credentials
where
credential
providers,
where
n
is
the
number
of
a
diverse
regions.
A
A
I
think
the
negative
or
the
the
caching
of
the
negative
result
is
pretty
clearly
a
bug,
and
if
we
could,
if
we
could
extract
out
or
create
a
new
PR
on
I
guess
against
the
114
branch,
where
we
just
fix
that
that
to
me
feels
like
it
could
be
a
pretty
like
I'd.
Imagine,
that'd
be
less
than
10
or
20
lines
right,
and
that
would
be
high.
B
A
I'm
just
wondering
whether
it's
possible
to
as
it
were
just
fixed,
the
bug
and
not
you
know,
fix
the
whole
like
design
issues
in
a
cherry
pick,
because
it's
it's
very
it's
it's
a
gray
area.
We
say
we,
don't
we
don't
back
port
features.
This
is
a
bug
fix
with
supporting
design,
cleanup
and
I.
Don't
know
how
we
feel
about
that
and.
B
C
I
think
that
the
the
fix
that
we
made
is
we
kind
of
conflated
things
here,
you're
right,
we
kind
of
cleaned
up
some
design,
while
we
were
fixing
a
bug
and
that
that
does
make
this
a
little
bit
of
a
gray
area,
but
I
think
we're
basically
gonna
have
to
just
totally
start
from
scratch.
If
we
want
to
just
do
a
targeted
bug
fix
into
a
previous
release,
and
that
just
strikes
me
is
not
a
great
use
of
our
time.
A
How
why
don't
you
open
the
the
cherry
pick
to
114
and
we
can
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
remember
to
my
hairdo
114,
that's
very
quick
person
is,
but
we
can
see
how
they
react
if
they're
like
this
looks
great
then,
but
there
is
no
problem
I.
My
my
gut
is
that
there
may
be
more
pushback
than
that,
but
I
I
think
having
having
a
cherry
pick
and
having
a
discussion
on
there
would
be
pretty
objective
way
to
do
things
and
we
can
then
like
clarify.
A
C
A
A
Maybe
not
the
newest
reference,
the
reference.
The
issue
like
I,
didn't
know
where
there
was
a
well-defined
issue
versus
a
because
as
I
recall
there
was
you
know
there.
You
cleaned
up
a
bunch
of
things
in
this
PR,
which
is
great
right,
but
it
makes
it
harder
to
cherry-pick
like.
There
was
the
issue
about
the
lack
of
separation
of
the
packages
and
crossing
over
the
packages,
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
but
like
this
to
me,
the
the
package
issue
wouldn't
justify
a
cherry-pick,
whereas
or
wouldn't
itself
just
by
cherry-pick.
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
Don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
anyone
wants
to
put
on
that
topic.
Otherwise
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one
just
copied
your
links
into
there
into
our
minutes.
Just
so
we
have
them,
because
the
student
chat
goes
away
and
easier,
keep
watching
the
video
and
for
me,
alright,
the
next
one
is
a
nother
PR,
which
I
have
not
looked
at,
which
is
the
so
from
last
time.
Yan.
A
A
A
And
essentially,
this
PR
is
a
good
functionality
that
has
been
developed
by
a
company
called
peak
and
kloppenburg,
and
we
have
not
really
dealt
with
it.
We
have
not
merged
it
or
told
them,
we've
not
said
yes
or
no,
which
is
not
helpful,
and
it
seems
like
it's
an
important
piece
of
functionality
in
the
autoscaler
which
a
lot
of
people
would
like
so
I
said.
I
would
look
at
it,
but
I
have
not
yet
had
the
time
to
it's.