►
From YouTube: Kubernetes kops office hours 20201218
Description
Recording of the kops office hours meeting held on 20201218
A
A
Please
do
feel
free
to
add
things
to
the
agenda
if
you
would
like
to
and
add
your
name,
if
you
would
like
to,
we
have
a
relatively
light
festive
attendance
today,
but
I
think
we
can
just
dive
right
in
the
first
thing
on
the
agenda
is
that
I
was
supposed
to
review
the
std
terraform
resource
name
issue.
I
did
not
do
that,
but
I
shall
do
that
immediately
following
this
meeting.
C
A
B
A
A
B
A
D
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
Okay,
demigration,
we
all
know
it
will
happen
somehow,
and
I
was
thinking
besides
the
test
grid
changes
it's
a
bit
overwhelming
at
the
moment
with
all
the
tabs
and
they
run
pretty
rarely
to
to
make
sense
of
the
results.
So
a
bit
on
the
side.
As
a
side
note,
I
don't
think
quickly
tests
help
that
much
there
are.
I
mean
it
would
help
if
they
would
always
work
without
flakes,
but
unfortunately
there
is
a.
B
I
don't
know
25
chance
for
something
to
fail,
or
I
don't
know,
maybe
a
little
smaller
and
then
no
one
will,
and
you
also
see
only
the
two
weeks
of
results,
because
that's
the
configuration
a
bit
hard
to
change
that.
I
think
peter
tried
and
couldn't
do
much.
So
my
proposal
would
be
to
change
our
periodic
tests
from
docker
to
container
d.
B
B
A
A
Test
so
on
the
grid
test,
the
I
don't
know
if
I
can't
remember
who
merged
it.
Thank
you
to
have
emerged.
I've
started
annotating
the
jobs
with
the
parameters
and
the
intent
is
that
I
want
to
start
to
capture
the
results
like
the
the
configuration
and
the
results
separately
from
test
grid,
because
I
agree
like
there
was
the
test
grid
results.
The
the
results,
as
shown
in
test
grid,
are
like
they're
nice
to
drill
down.
A
If
you
want
to
like
click
on
one
particular
test,
but
they
aren't
really
reflective
of
the
the
grid
approach,
which
is
you
know
that
the
the
tests
are
not
individually
interesting.
They
are
only
interesting
in
aggregate,
so
you
have
to
like
slice
across
all
the
configurations
and
say
like
which
is
the
most
likely,
which
is
the
top
configuration
that
that
flakes
and
then
look
at
that
across
multiple
ones.
A
So,
in
other
words
like
I
did,
I
did
an
early
like
analysis
of
this
and
I
think
we
can
say,
like
you
know
like
for
the
sake
of
argument
using,
I
think,
actually
like
rel,
seven
and
or
rel.
Six
and
psyllium
doesn't
work
or
something
like
that,
and
that
was
like
one
of
the
top
something
some
combination
like
that
was
one
of
the
top
like
factors
and
so
like
deciding
what
we
do
about
that
like
either
excluding
it
because
it
just
can't
be
fixed
or
fixing
it.
A
F
Yeah
yeah,
if,
if
we
could,
if
we
could
capture
that
those
results,
then
we
could
actually
query
them.
You
know
stick
them
into
some
database
and
actually
provide
some
useful
details
about
them
and
then
pull
the
data
out
when
we
want
to
actually
run
a
test
that
is
flaky
exactly
so.
I
think
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
D
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
The
thing
well,
I
can
have
a
look
at
doing
that
then
120
jobs
from
script,
because
I
can't
remember
whether
there
is
a
script
or
not.
Alongside
go
great,
I
feel
like
there
is,
but
I
don't
I
can't
recall,
but
this
would
be
testing
the
latest
kubernetes
with
sorry.
The
latest
k-ops
with
kubernetes
120.
A
A
D
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
H
B
A
A
Okay,
sorry!
Next
on
the
agenda,
I
was
me
so
there
are
hello
there
are.
I
sent
I
updated
my
add-ons
pr,
that's
been
up
for
a
long
time
and
I
also
sent
another
one,
the
two
of
them.
The
first
one
is
basically
based
on
primarily
on
john's
excellent
feedback
around
the
security
model,
and
so
the
the
change
we've
made
in
or
we
can
make
in
cluster
add-ons
is
to
effectively
pre-create
the
rbac.
A
So
the
operator
itself
doesn't
need
to
create
the
our
back
roles,
and
so
the
the
operator
needs
vastly
fewer
permissions
still
a
couple
more
than
I
would
like,
but
vastly
fewer.
So
I
think
I
think
you
will
be
more
happy
john.
In
that
regard.
The
next
one
is
might
make
you
even
more
happy,
which
is
retain
sort
of
the
execution
model.
Today,
where
we
run
the
operator
in
a
sort
of
one-shot
model,
we
we
run
it
client-side
and
I'll.
A
Come
back
to
that
in
a
second,
we
run
it
in
in
the
cop
cli
and
we
basically
find
out
the
manifest
that
will
be
created,
and
so
it
goes
into
the
the
bootstrap
yaml
as
if
there
was
no
operator
involved.
There's
no
operator
that
runs
at
all.
There
are
probably
other
modes
in
between,
but
those
are
the
sort
of
ones
I
think
are
most
interesting.
The
the
huge
downside
of
the
pre-running
is.
A
It
now
requires
us
to
run
docker
on
as
part
of
chaops,
so
that
has
two
gotchas,
one
of
which
is
docker
and
docker
is
still
not
a
thing
or
still
a
thing
and
the
other
one
of
which
is,
it
would
be
nice
like
it.
It
would
be
nice
to
not
have
a
dependency
on
docker
at
all.
There
may
be
things
we
can
do
there,
but
that's
that's
the
that's
the
gotcha
there.
A
So
it's
it's
a
good
model
in
that
regard.
It
gets
rid
of
our.
It
gets
a
good
model
in
that
it
gets
rid
of
the
it
enables
us
to
update
add-ons
without
updating
without
having
to
update
the
chaos
binary
and
it
enables
them
to
have
processing
complicated
processing.
So
that's
good.
I
think
the
downside
is
the
need
for
docker
execution
in
that
mode.
It's
not
required
everywhere
else.
A
But
anyway,
if
people
want
to
look
at
it
and
comment
on
it
that
would
be
greatly
received.
I
don't
think
either.
One
of
them
is
like
technically
ready
to
merge
like.
I
think
they
both
have
conflicts,
but
the
idea
should
be
there
and
you
can
sort
of
see
the
the
the
our
back.
Permissions
were
able
to
whittle
down
to
by
pre-creating
the
rbac
and
you're
able
to
see
the
the
docker
execution.
A
A
Excuse
me
all
right.
First
item
on
the
recurring
topics
is:
when
should
we
have
the
next
informal
meeting
and
plans
for
the
january
1st
meeting,
I
think
we
pre-talked
about
the
plans
for
the
january
1st
meeting,
which
is
that
we're
not
going
to
have
one,
and
so
our
next
meeting
would
therefore
be
on
the
15th
ish
of
january,
and
I
think
we
should
probably
therefore
have
an
informal
meeting.
A
I
personally
am
going
to
take
a
little
time
off
in
between
that,
so
I
prefer
it
to
be
after
the
first
yeah
so
either
before
christmas
or
after
the
first
it
could
be
good
to
do.
We
could
try
to
do
an
inform
one.
I
don't
know
how
would
people
rather
do
something
next
week
before
christmas,
which
probably
means
monday
or
tuesday?
A
A
A
A
A
Okay
and
then
we
have
nothing
planned
on
nothing
yet
planned
for
releases
for
the
upcoming
weeks,
but
we
have
a
discussion
of
18
119
and
120..
We
have
a
118
3
with
a
couple
of
blocking
prs,
which
I
think
the
second
one
is
the
scd
terraform
naming,
which
I
will
look
at
and
the
first
one
is
a
sabrina
is
around
backboarding.
The
target
group
related
fixes.
B
Yes,
those
things
were
breaking
attaching
target
groups
to
clusters,
which
I
don't
know
for
me.
It's
an
important
feature.
I
guess
other
people
use
it
too
and
I
think
it's
fixed.
I
would
appreciate
the
review
from
peter
and
rodrigo
and
without
with
this,
and
the
cherry
picks
of
whatever
we
decide
for
hcd
118
can
be
released.
A
B
H
So
the
the
gist
is
that
terraform
0.12
no
longer
allows
resource
names
to
begin
with.
A
digit
under
certain
scenarios
cops
create
cluster,
would
populate
xcd
member
names
to
start
with
a
digit.
If
the.
If
the
digit
is
the
first,
is
it
like
the
unique
part
of
whatever
the
full
cluster
name
is
or
something
like
that
for
the
zone.
H
And
so,
if
the
icd
members
start
with
a
digit,
then
their
terraform
ebs
volumes,
resource
names
start
with
a
digit
and
paraform
0.12
doesn't
like
that,
and
so
we
talked
about.
Can
we
change
the
member
names
on
an
existing
cluster
without
disruption,
and
I
think
that
impacts
how
etcb
manager
does
its
discovery?
H
And
so
I
don't
think
there's
a
documented
way
to
do
that.
Maybe
justin
has
ideas
or
we
changed
just
how
the
terraform
resource
name
is
generated
in
those
scenarios
where
the
name
would
otherwise
start
with
a
digit,
and
then
users
that
are
impacted
by
this
would
need
to
terraform
state
move
the
volume
from
the
old
resource
name
to
the
new
resource
name.
The
risk
of
that
is
if
they
upgrade
cops
to
the
version
that
includes
this
fix,
generate
the
terraform
output
and
then
terraform
apply
without
reading
the
upgrade
instructions.
H
Terraform
will
destroy
their
ebs
volumes
and
you
know
render
the
cluster
useless.
We
don't
have.
Terraform
does
have
prevention,
better
measures
to
prevent
accidental
deletion
of
ebs
volumes
and
stuff,
but
we
don't
have
that
set
already,
and
I
believe
that
it
needs
to
be
set
before
the
apply
for
it
to
take
effect.
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
G
G
A
A
A
Perfect
dot
refresh
this
one
should
not
be
in
119.,
I'm
actually
working
on
this
one
right
now,
but
I'll
take
this
one
out
right
now
as
well.
I
think
I'm
not
logged
in
here
yeah!
Thank
you
and
this
one
I
think
as
well
deserves
to
should
be
in,
could
come
out.
I
feel
like
you've,
already
done
that,
so
I
think
it's
probably
obsolete,
but
let's
at
least
take
out
the
milestone
I'll
make
sure.
A
A
A
But
it's
not
feature
flagged
right,
so
it's
you,
but
you
have
to
opt
in
by
choosing
an
image
and
write
the
instance
and
the
instance
correct.
Sorry,
yes,
thank
you,
but
yes,
I
think
that's
a
great
one
to
to
tell
people
about
as
a
like.
Please
try
it
if
you're
interested
and
let
us
know,
but
we
do.
We
do
know
that
there
are
failures
currently
so
like
the
csi
failure
and.
A
A
B
A
H
B
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
I
think
there
are
a
few
gcp
issues.
I
don't
have
them
on
hand,
but
maybe
you
justin
or
eric
could
take
a
look
at
those
one
is
related
to
warnings
or
something
during
updates.
I
think
peter
took
a
look
at
it
a
while
ago,
but
couldn't
get
it
moved
and
I
don't
know.
Maybe
there
are
a
few
more,
maybe
something
simple
or
you
know
so
that
we
can
fix
some
bugs
before
the
release.