►
From YouTube: Kubernetes KubeBuilder Meeting 20201117
Description
KubeBuilder Meeting for 2020/11/17. See https://sigs.k8s.io/kubebuilder for more details.
A
To
the
cloud
cool,
so
thank
you
for
joining
us
on
the
tuesday
november
17th
bug
triage
for
q
builder.
This
morning
I
was
thinking
we
could
start
out
with
looking
out
at
the
the
issues,
tagged,
kind
bug
and
making
sure
those
are
assigned
or
resolved
and
then
moving
to
looking
at
other
recent
issues
as
well.
How
do
folks
feel
about
that.
A
I
would
be
happy
to
take
this.
We
don't
have
to
dwell
into
this
go
into
this
too
much,
but
this
looks
like
relatively
low
hanging
fruit
and
since
I'm
still
relatively
new
to
this
code
base,
I'd
be
happy
to
assign
this
to
myself
and
take
a
look.
C
B
A
B
A
I
can
just
I'll
post
I'll
write
up
a
follow-up
message
to
that
effect.
Yeah.
This
doesn't
look
related
to
cute
builder.
D
Well,
the
fact
that
it,
the
way
it
reads
to
me,
is
like
invalid
value,
you
should
say
inbound
value,
501
expected
to
be
less
than
500,
which
I
think
is
what
this
person
is
saying
like.
Should
we
say
like
what
we
already
talked
about
yeah.
Do
you
think
this
person
should
open
a
new
issue
in
any
school?
A
E
A
link
in
there
at
the
bottom
of
that
last
issue
as
well
that
points
to
another
issue
where
open
api
validations
weren't
were
incorrect
in
in
kubernetes
kubernetes.
G
Weren't
able
to
do
it,
so
I
made
a
small
request
that
added
a
plural
flag
that
just
changed
the
plural
name
and
when
we
did
that
we
tested
it,
and
there
was
some
validation
error
or
some
some
book
with
the
plurals
as
we
weren't
using
them,
we
were
using
always
the
default
plural.
We
didn't
see
this
bug
before,
but
I
don't
know.
I
think
it's
something
related
with
some
of
the
tags
that
we
need
to
add
to
to
make
the
plural
in
in
kubernetes,
in
the
in
the
scaffolded
files.
A
A
C
B
C
And
this
shows
that
the
yb
hooks
has
the
flag.
So
would
it
really
make
sense,
has
in
the
resource
as
well.
G
Yeah
in
in
version
two
of
the
of
google
build
of
cour
builder,
we
actually
have
one
flag
that
it's
its
name
is
resource
actually,
and
it's
only
for
the
create
webhook
method
or
plugin
or
whatever,
and
it
does
that
setting
the
the
plural
version
of
the
of
the
kind,
but
there's
only
that
flag
for
for
the
create
web
hook,
instead
of
also
for
the
create
api.
G
So
I
I
had
another
pull
request
open
with
the.
I
can
link
it
here
if
you
want
to
add
the
flags
to
to
the
third
person.
G
B
G
The
following
issue:
it's
in
the
chat,
the
the
the
pull
request
I
linked
is
the
one
that
that's
the
plural
flag
to
the
actually.
I
think
it
does
to
the
person
who
also
but
that's
something
that
they
have
to
change,
only
to
add
it
to
the
to
the
version
three
and
when
we
tested
that
one
is
when
we
found
the
bug
that
that
it
was
not
creating
the
the
proper
resources.
B
D
C
I
think
it
is
accepted
yeah,
probably
my
disturbing
v3
alpha.
C
D
I
just
wanted
to
summarize
to
make
sure
I
understood
this
so
we're
just
talking
about
a
plural
flag,
to
create
api
and
create
web
poke
and
then
plumbing
that
through
such
that
the
scaffolded
go
files
have
the
right
markers
such
that
when
controller
gen
runs
the
crgs
get
generated
correctly.
Is
that
what
all
of
this
is.
A
H
G
H
Yeah,
if
this
is
the
only
part
of
a
resource
that
we
would
ever
really
need
to
set,
that's
you
know
different
from
what
you
pass
into
group
version
kind.
Then
I
I'm
fine
with
that.
In
that
case,
if
there.
H
That
we
want
to
start
adding
to
markers
like
this,
then
this
can
get
kind
of
messy
if
we
keep
adding
flags
for
this
kind
of
thing,
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there.
I
I
think
this
is
the
only
thing
that
we
would
ever
really
want
to
modify,
because
we
do
use
a
library
to
pluralize
and
that
might
not
also-
or
that
might
not
always
be
the
correct
pluralization
of
kind.
Exactly.
A
And
like
it's
also
a
pain
to
add
overrides
to
that
pluralization
library,
so
allowing
people
to
specify
themselves,
I
think,
is
good
in
the
long
run.
A
Cool,
does
anybody
want
to
take
this
on.
A
I'd
be
happy
to
take
a
first
look
at
it.
Maybe
this
would
be
useful
for
me
all
right,
so
just
refreshing
this
to
make
sure
the
label
shop
all
right.
Let's
go
down
to
cli
bug
filed
here.
C
C
But
if
we
have
a
director
with
the
name
project
as
well,
the
same
error
will
be
faced,
so
it's
more
likely
to
skip.
If
he's
a
director
check,
if
he's
a
file,
if
not.
D
Actually,
it's
even
worse
than
that,
I
would
say
if
the
command
doesn't
require,
knowing
the
project
anything
about
the
project
file,
we
shouldn't
even
check
its
existence
or
know
anything
about
it.
So
the
same
example,
I
think,
is
if
we
run
tubular
version
that
should
never
have
to
know
anything
about
project
file.
C
G
We
are
reading
the
project
file
because
we
need
to
to
know
both
the
project
version
and
the
plugins
in
order
to
be
able
to
build
the
command
itself
with
the
plugin
system.
We
need
to
know
both
those
those
attributes
and
if
you
provide
them
by
a
flag,
you
have
them,
but
if
you
don't
provide
them
by
a
flag,
you
have
to
check
them
in
the
in
the
config
file,
and
the
issue
is
that
you
can't
resolve
the
plugins
without
them.
G
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
of
a
mess
over
there
a
I
uploaded
a
work
in
progress,
pull
request
like
a
couple
hours
ago
that
refactored
a
bit
well
more
than
a
bit
at
the
part
of
the
client
and
make
sure
that
if
we
are
reading
the
file-
and
we
don't
find
it-
we
don't
get
an
error
for
that,
and
I
think
it
will
solve
this
problem.
But
I'm
not
completely
sure
it's
still
a
work
in
progress.
I
need
to
add
some
text
some
more
tests,
so
I
can
do
this
one
if
you
want.
A
G
B
Not
bug
this
is
a
feature
requests.
I
think
I
think
it.
I
think
it
was
eventually
fixed,
probably
just
leave
a
little
blurb,
oh
yeah
they're,
using
an
ancient
version.
B
Yeah
say
this
is
a
kubernetes
api
server
feature.
It
was
fixed
in
a
newer.
It
may
be
fixed
in
a
newer
version.
If
not
please,
please
file
this
against
kubernetes
kubernetes.
A
B
A
A
D
A
I'll
refresh
this
just
make
sure
it's
not
today
all
right,
some
fields
of
cupola
version
output
are
missing
or
unknown.
H
This
should
be
resolved
by
a
recent
pr
that
set
these
fields.
This.
A
H
B
B
It
should
be
yeah
that
should
be
fine.
I
think
we
might
at
some
point
want
to
consider
unifying
our
different
version
approach.
I
think
controller
tools
version
pulls
from
the
go
module
version
instead,
but
I
think
largely
we
intend
q
builder
to
be
distributed
as
a
binary,
so.
A
G
B
B
A
C
A
All
right,
deploying
manager
pod,
is
non-root.
C
Teaser
one
we
need
release,
we
need
releasing
the
cloud
of
the
box
and
today
I
predict
it's
the
only
thing
that
is
you're
missing,
so.
B
C
She
is
specifically
issued
it's
outdated.
We
have
in
our
script
that
helps
us
to
update
that,
but
it
is
to
requiring
manual
work.
I
think
he
has
one
issue
tracking.
So
far
we
try
to
figure
out
a
better
way
to
do
that
and
at
the
end
he
has
a
feature
request
from
you
gabi,
for
we
do
something
to
do
a
sheriff.
Oh.
A
Yeah,
I
I
remember
this.
This
is
already
like
a
result.
I
I've
been
meaning
to
write
like
a
small
rfc
for
how
we
could
automate
pushing
updates
to
docs
to
the
actual
like
v2
book.
I'm
gonna
assign
this
to
me
and
say
triage
accepted,
and
I
I
need
to
write
this
rfc
this
weekend.
It's
been
on
my
to-do
list
forever.
C
A
I
can
do
the
cherry
pop.
I
could
do
a
cherry
pick
I'll
make
I'll
make
a
point
of
opening
up
a
chair.
A
cherry
pick
pr
today,
all
right
oops,
what
other
bugs
are
still
there.
Okay,
we
have
this
one.
A
Yeah
I
have
to
drop
out
to
join
a
meeting
for
work,
but
let
me
just
make
sure
that
camilla
can
become
the
host
of
this
meeting
as
well.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
this
this
bug
for
just
for
posterity.
I
think
this
was
solved
by
a
fixing
controller
tools,
after
much
deliberation
and
it
just
like
literally
in
order
to
work
with
new
versions
of
api
api
server.
You
need
the
new
controller
tools
because
of
a
upstream
issue
involving
contra
validation,
changes
they
made.
H
Yeah,
the
v3
output
plug-in
has
the
the
fix
for
this,
and
also
in
the
sdk.
I
posted
a
workaround.
If
you
scroll
down,
you
can
see
the
comment
that
I
made.
C
A
C
B
Versus
on
field,
that's
true,
and
we
could
probably
do
some
pre-processing
in
the
script
so
that
that
on
field
and
on
type,
just
as
showed
as
like
two
labels
on
the
same
marker
but
like
as
it
stands,
they
just
appear
as
separate
markers
in
the
json
blob.
We
get
from
controller
tools,
so
they
appear
multiple
times.
B
G
Okay,
and
is
it
up
to
date
or
it
because
I
know
we
have
updated
controller
tools
con.
I
think
we
have
updated
control
tools
recently,
so.
B
B
A
A
Cool,
so
I
will
say
that
this
has
been
accepted,
I'm
happy
to
work
on
documentation
issues
as
well,
so
I
will
take
that
cool
all
right.
I
think
we
have
everything
triaged
here
we
already
covered
this
this
morning.
I
think
we're
going
to
just
close
this
I'll
put
that
on
my
to-do
list.
For
today
I
do
need
to
drop
out
to
join
another
work-related
meeting,
but
I
think
camila
is
going
to
take
over
as
host
and
then
share
the
same
screen.
C
A
I'll
take
time,
I
can
take
this
time
to
finish
up
writing
an
explanation
as
to
why
we'll
close
this
first.
A
C
C
C
C
H
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
that.
Was
there
specific
something
specific
that
you
wanted
to
look
at
camilla
or.
C
Yes,
I
would
like
to
see
if
he
solely
could
stay
after
it
is
meeting
for
we
shaky
what
we
need
to
do
to
do
a
new
release
if
you
making
the
net
release.
D
C
What
is
it
a
release
we,
if
he
we
can
go
up
the
project
reversal
for
three
also,
if
he
we
can
make
the
plugin
v3
alphabooking
stable,
or
we
need
to
release
first
cheese
as
alpha
and
today
do
a
next
one
like
a
3.1.
B
I
should
just
be
like
tagging
release
on
on
github,
and
then
we
have
a
google
cloud,
builds
configuration
stored
in
the
repo
that,
like
builds
q
builder
and
pushes
to
that
tag,
but
I
think
the
configuration
is
broken
because
it
hasn't
been
used
in
a
while
in
that
it
is
still
set
up
to
build
with
a
really
old
version
of
go
and
like
something's
something's,
very
broken
there,
because
I
think
it's
using
a
similar
configuration
to
our
nightlys,
which
are
currently
broken.
B
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
like
what
we
want
to
do
with
the
release
tooling,
because
we
we,
I
think
we
were
using
like
a
modified
version
of
go
releaser,
that
sunil
wrote
or
or
forked,
and
I
think
we
probably
don't
want
to
be
using
that
anymore.
Just
like
it's,
we
want
to
be
using
something
that
either
like
we
can
unify
across
all
of
our
projects
or
something
that's
maintained
or
something
so.
H
It's
just
really
really
quickly
about
the
cloud
build
config!
That's
that's!
What
you're
talking
about
right.
C
H
B
Yeah
it
it
could
have
been
something
about
like
the
weird
custom
version
of
go
releaser
or
something
you
can
like.
You
could
try
that
and
see
if
it
works
and
like
I'm
happy
to
get
on
at
some
point
too
and
and
like
on
slack
and
we
can
like
or
or
on
a
different
short
meeting,
and
we
could
just
like.
I
could
look
at
literally
just
like
look
at
the
direct
results
of
the
cloud
build
run
yeah
but
like
I
think
it
might
be
more
complicated
than
that.
H
Let
me
prioritize
this
this
week,
so
we
can
at
least
release
when
we're
ready
to
and
I'll
see
what
errors
I
find.
I've
been
playing
around
a
lot
with
go
releaser
recently,
so
I'm
familiar
with
how
all
this
stuff
works
and
yeah
I'll.
Let
you
know
what
I
find.
B
B
H
Okay,
good
to
know
okay,
I'll,
try
and
test
this
out
with
upgrading
to
go
115
see
what
happens.
H
Okay,
cool,
okay,
camilla!
You
were
saying
something
about
this
issue
right.
C
H
I
would
I
mean
ideally,
but
I
think
there
are
you
you
wanted
to
converge
a
web
hooks
change.
I
was
looking
at
that
vr.
That
would
require
us
not.
That
would
require
three
alpha
to
merge,
so
we
have
to
agree
on
that
first
and
I
don't
know
of
any
other
changes
that
we
want
to
make
to
the
project
file
right
now.
D
The
other
one
possibly
impacting
change
is
the
phase
two
plug-in
stuff.
That's
fairly
early
on
there's,
there's
an
ep
that
rashmi
posted
maybe
last
week,
but
I
think
that
would
impact
the
project
file.
So
we
need
to
decide
whether
we
want
to
get
that
in
ahead
of
project
version,
3
stable
or
whether
we
go
ahead
with
project
version
three
and
then
either
try
to
figure
out
how
that
works
in
a
backward
compatible
way
or
that
ends
up
being
a
project
version
before.
D
It's
sorry:
if
it's
just
an
addition,
then
I
think
we
can
add.
I
don't
know
if
folks
agree
with
this,
but
I
think
it's
just
adding
to
the
project
file.
We
can
probably
do
that
without
bumping
the
major
project
version
as
long
as
there's
a
backwards
compatible
way
of
understanding
that
file
without
that
field.
There.
H
Yeah-
and
I
think
we
can
do
the
same
thing
for
actually,
we
can't
really
do
the
same
thing
for
the
adding
web
hooks
to
the
project
file,
because
we
don't
know
whether
a
user
scaffolded
a
web
hook
in
the
current
implementation
of
the
project
file.
C
B
B
If
we
don't,
if
we're
not
intending
on
releasing
doing
another
release
with
like
q
builder
dash
v
3.0.0-alpha,
then
it's
fine,
but
I
think
we
should
probably
wait
to
increment
the
project
version
v3
to
stable
until
we
feel
like
until
we've
had
at
least
a
couple
alpha
releases
and
or
we
until
we
cut
the
final
version
of
v3
they're,
not
like
they're,
not
supposed
to
be
tied
together,
necessarily
in
the
long
term,
but
like
for
the
next
release.
We
might
just
want
to
tie
those
two
together.
F
G
D
B
Yeah,
I
I
plus
one
to
that
for
similar
reasons
to
just
what
I
just
said,
like,
I
think
for
q
builder
version
three
all
of
the
three
should
go
to
stable
at
the
same
time,
yeah!
That's
what
I
thought
too.
D
G
Also,
we
have,
we
have
been
pretty
strict,
what
with
what
we
allow
to
to
go
in
already
stable
or
very
released
version
like,
for
example,
we
have
a
lot
of
changes
that
we
have.
We
could
have
applied
to
version
two,
but
we
haven't
because
it's
version
two
and
it's
already
released.
G
C
D
Yeah
I'd
like
to
also
add
that
so
so
the
sdk
team
has
been
talking
about.
How
can
we
get
the
community
bumping
up
and
using
the
latest
versions
of
kubernetes?
So
I
think
another
piece
of
this
would
be
once
120
gas,
let's
also
pull
in
the
version
of
controller
runtime
that
has
120
dependencies,
put
that
in
v3
or
v3
alpha,
and
then
hopefully
you
know
in
another
month
or
two.
D
D
I
agree,
I
think,
the
if,
if
we're
gonna
wait
on
plug-in
phase,
two
we're
gonna,
basically
strand
a
whole
bunch
of
people
on
kubernetes,
118
or
yeah
118,
because
we're
making
a
whole
bunch
of
breaking
changes
in
controlled
runtime
on
0.7.
That
necessitates
a
new
version
of
the
plugin
okay.
So
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
balance.
We
need
to
talk
about
and
strike.
G
C
Okay,
so
just
to
see,
if
I
understand
the
strategy,
we
will
fix
the
tool
that
we
can
to
release
things.
We
will
do
a
release
if
it
3.0
blah
blah
blah
alpha
injuries
too
weaky
plugging
alpha
into
project35
alpha,
then
the
next
release,
when
we
be
able
to
do
a
release
that
is
stable,
will
be
verison
trajectory
very
soon.
Three
plugin
v3
is
stable
as
well.
G
C
Okay,
that
sounds
good
to
me.
I
will
put
these
comments
in
that
desk
as
well
before
we
have
it.
Yeah
the
existed
after
that
and
she
puts
in
she's
minus
10.
H
I
we
don't,
we
don't
have
to
go
through
these
right
now,
I'm
going
to
go
through
these
and
make
sure
that
all
of
them
are
necessary
to
release
or
to
like
stabilize
the
v3
plug-in.
I
think
some
of
them
can
be
moved
out,
so
we
could
probably
film
this
list
down
considerably,
or
some
of
them
are
already
done.
H
C
G
Also,
probably
we
want
to
er,
we
want
to
introduce
the
new
action.
Well,
we
we
already
did
we
already
changed
travis
for
github
actions
in
the
in
the
pull
request
process,
but
there's
also
a
new
feature
in
in
the
action
that
checks
the
the
titles
and
the
descriptions
and
probably
for
the
time
when
we
are
ready
to
release
the
first
one.
G
We
can
also
bump
it
so
that
the
workflow
uses
the
new
one,
because
it
right
now,
if
you
do
a
push
or
a
force,
push
the
messages
from
that
description
or
that
title
linkedin
are
not
being
shown
and
they
are
like
hidden
in
the
first
commit.
G
G
Can
you
make
one
yeah
I
mean
the
attendance
will
celebrate
knows
we
just
merged
a
pull
request
in
in
the
release
tools
that
also
tracks
synchronized
events,
so
that
both
the
both
when
you
push
and
you
first
push.
You
also
update
your
if
the
title
is
valid
or
the
pull
request
title
or
to
put
the
request
description
are
valid.
So
we
probably
also
want
to
add
that
to
version
3.
H
G
I
don't
think
I
can
actually
use
milestones
because
I'm
a
reviewer
only
but
yeah
I
will
ask
for
it.
H
I
think
camilla
and
zolly
both
have
them
so
just
picking
either
of
them.
B
H
Okay,
cool,
I
think
I
think
that
settles
it
for
this
meeting
and
yeah
anything
big
that
comes
up.
We
can
address
in
the
upcoming
builder
controller,
on
time,
controller
tools,
meeting.
C
It's
not
this
week.
Let's
see.
G
C
I
think
yeah,
okay,
the
only
has
just
more
one.
I
think
we
don't
have
time,
but
the
other
issue
that
I
tracked
that
maybe
is
relevant
to
to
the
chains
in
the
project
file.
Is
we
ensure
that
you
restore
all
input
data
from
the
users?
I
would
like
to
just
to
know
if
someone
has
an
objection
if
it
is
possible
to
do
jesus
for
the
next
release
nice,
if
not
it's
okay
as
well.