►
From YouTube: Kubernetes KubeBuilder Triage Meeting 2020/02/09
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
It's
an
issue,
headache
reopening!
A
I
made
a
comment.
I
understood
that
she
it's
missing.
We
build
another
archetype
of
the
two,
but
maybe
eddie.
Could
you
like
to
to
explain
yourself.
B
Yeah,
so
this
particular
issue
is
requesting
multiple
architectures
supported
by
queuebuilder,
which
is
currently
the
case,
but
what
never
happened
was
multiple
architectures
being
supported
for
the
m-test
binaries,
which
q-builder
depends
on.
So,
if
you
download
the
arm,
64
linux,
binary
of
cue
builder
and
you
create
a
new
project
and
you
run
like
make
test
it'll
fail
because
it
won't
be
able
to
download
and
test
for
your
architecture
for
arm64.
B
A
So
for
me
to
show
us
perfect:
let's
put,
we
can
put
it
3-1
unless
someone
has
a
projection.
B
C
My
my
comment
was:
if
we
release
3.0
right
now
and
we
later
create
the
binaries,
will
they
be
able
to
do
that?
Will
they
be
able
to
test?
We
I
mean
it's
only
creating
the
m
test,
so
they
and
those
are
being
downloaded
when
you
run
the
mic,
make
test
targets,
so
I
don't
think
it
really
affects
the
release
but
yeah
I
I
think
it
will
be
merged
really
soon.
So
I
don't
think
that
will
be
a
problem.
B
Yeah
like
if
you're
right,
these
could
be
created
after
the
release
like
they
are
not
strictly
linked,
but
the
test
makefile
target
is
dependency
of
docker
build
targets,
so
basically
they
would
have
a
broken
make
file
and
couldn't
build
their
operator
image
without
these
binaries.
B
A
I
think
he,
I
think
it's
okay,
we're
pushing
3.0,
and
he,
if
here
we
came
that
she
always
done
it
for
the
release.
We
can
judge
it.
You
know
movie,
it
is
one
for
the
next
one
has
no
problem
until
I
believe
we
know
so,
would
you
be
fine,
the
other
one?
Would
you
be
accepted.
A
D
C
A
A
C
A
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
my
questions
are:
are
you
making?
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
speak
about
that,
but
my
question
was
like:
would
you
not
at
least
be
part
of
the
phase
two
plugin,
the
first.
C
One
I'm
not
sure
because
phase
two
was
a
bit
generic
because
we
wanted
in
face
2.
We
wanted
to
include
like
binaries
plugins
as
binaries
and
that's
a
pretty
ambitious
goal
right
now,
and
I
think
it
was
a
bit
like
hold
or
or
post
because
of
that,
and
that's
the
reason
that
I
also
raised
another
face
that
I
called
phase
1.5.
C
That
has
had
some
reviews
already
a
couple
and
the
idea
is
to
to
make
the
phase
two
in
in
two
steps.
Instead
of
one,
the
phase
1.5
will
be
enabling
chaining
plugins
and
this
con,
and
this
issue
is
not
talking
about
the
chain
of
plugins.
C
A
So
so,
when
you
say
override
is
like
if
he
I
put
create
api
with
another
command,
would
you
use
the
use,
use
the
logic?
For
example,
we
have
the
goal
v3
to
create
api,
that
has
the
sub
commands
to
create
api
tcp
commands.
So
if
we
use
another
plugin
here
like,
let's
imagine
the
help,
would
you
use
the
create
api
from
hell
and
not
from
the
plugin
in
the
project
file
in
the
default.
C
In
this
case,
it
will
be,
it
will
use
the
ones
that
are
defined
in
that
create
api
plugins
flag.
If
you
set
them
both
well,
it
will
use
both.
If
you
only
set
one,
it
will
only
set
use
that
one.
The
idea
is
that
the
this,
this
issue
is
only
about
overriding
for
this
command.
The
chaining
of
plugins
is
the
topic
that
is
being
handled
in
the
other
in
the
other
requests
in
phase
1.5.
C
A
D
A
And
you
think
what
is
the
scenario
that
we
have
now?
That
is
justified?
We
we
do
that,
because
how
many
complex
options
that
should
we,
for
example,
let's
see
if
I
can
explain
my
idea
how
many
complex
options
that
we
allow
the
user
to
do
you
know
more
hard
is
for
us
to
provide
a
guidance
and
to
help
them
when
he
has
problems
or
creating
helpers,
injured
links
that
solve
the
como
issues,
because
if
they
do
kingdom,
if
you
eat
open
too
much,
they
scope
it's
hard
to
insure
and
you.
How
is
your
testing
scenarios?
A
You
know
one
plugin
with
another
in
the
ci
to
ensure
that
nothing
is
broke.
C
A
Okay,
but
today
in
review
adjectives
complexes,
let's
see,
let's
imagine
that
we
say
we
don't
need
to
ensure
that
we
don't
need
to
use
the
sign
to
ensure
a
matrix
with
it
one
compatible
with
another,
but
he
what
he
the
scenario.
What's
the
problem
that
we
have
now
that
you
would
be
so
busy
like
with
that
like
what.
C
A
C
C
C
C
D
A
D
A
C
I
see
what
you
mean.
I
say
what
you
mean:
you
mean
that
when
you
create
an
ap
with
a
different
set
of
plugins,
you
have
to
store
that
information
somehow
in
the
project
config
file,
so
that
when
we
recreate
the
pro
the
plugin
from
a
conference
file,
you
know
that
you
have
to
use
those
plugins
for
that
certain
epi.
A
And
before
we
are
able
to
turbo
shoot
as
well,
for
example,
any
user
opening,
so
I
try
to
use
ngs
and
now
my
project
is
not
working.
It's
not.
They
don't
give
these
steps
to
reproduce
everything.
Always
sometimes
they
do
the
things
and
they
don't
know
exactly.
What
was
the
step
that
should
make
the
project
stop
to
work,
so
how
you
know
that
she
was
a
combination
of
the
other
plugins.
A
You
know
that
she
calls
it
some
strange
scholar
fold
that
is
not
compatible
jesus
one
concern
the
other
one
is
like,
for
example,
I
have
a
b
c,
then
a
requires
input.
A
the
b
requires
input
to
be
ngc
required.
Input
is
g.
A
C
Okay
related
to
the
first
concern,
we
will
probably
have
to
store
that
information
in
the
gothic
file,
so
we
will
probably
require
a
it
will
probably
be
for
our
version.
4
plugin,
with
with
a
version
4
config
file.
Probably
we
will
need
another
field
that
says
the
plugins
in
case
they
are
not
the
default
ones
and
for
the
second
concern,
the
one
that
validates
the
input
for
each
plugin
that
we
are
chaining.
C
That's
not
related
with
this
issue
in
particular,
but
with
the
one
that
enables
changing
plugins,
because
that's
a
concern
that
has
to
be
risen
for
for
every
plug-in
chain.
I
mean
it
doesn't
matter
if
we
do
it
for
only
for
a
great
api
or
if
we
do
for
the
whole
project
and
the
phase
1.5
implements
some
different
hooks
and
some
of
them
are
to
validate
the
resource
or
the
config
file
that
they
receive
and
they
can
error
out
and
if
they
give
an
error.
A
A
C
A
C
That's
a
concern
that
I
had
to
resolve
for
1.5
that
a
1.5
does
have
an
implementation,
and
the
only
solution
is
the
common
ones
need
to
be
provided
by
the
key
itself.
A
Yeah
yeah,
because
I
I
I
spoke
it
like
it,
would
it
be
possible,
like
reduce
the
scope
like
you,
can
just
use
one
plugin
here
and
like
it
is,
maybe
with
those
some
it
wasn't
complex
yeah
they
do
some
complexity.
You
know
make
it
easier.
Do
you
know
solving
jesse,
that's
another,
that
we
have
now
the
partner
one
and
you
you
know.
C
A
A
The
controller
is
this
call
follows
with
another
logic
and
other
data,
so
one
of
the
things
that
you
we
need
to
do
is
like
make
this
be
a
actual
plugin
after
the
the
plugin
design
added
in
the
project,
because
this
is
our
old
code
in
the
plugin
section.
That
is
not
really
the
plugin
now
in
the
currency
design.
A
C
C
C
A
A
Okay,
for
me,
it's
fine.
I
just
think
that
you
need
thinking
in
all
these
concerns
like
how
will
your
trackage
is
information?
How
do
you
know
how
you
are
make
it
clear
that
we
we
don't
ensure
the
compatibility?
C
But
that's
that's
something
for
discussion
on
plugin
phase,
1.5
or
phase
two,
not
for
this
enhancement
propulsion
in
specific.
A
Yeah
I
mean
if
we
implemented
this
stuff,
we
need
track
that
he,
the
creator,
api,
was
done
with
the
esther
plugin,
and
you
know
if
the
default
one,
the
other
thing
is
like
how
we
will
communicate
to
the
user
like
be
aware,
know
what
you
are
doing,
because
we
cannot
ensure
it's
all
like
something,
maybe
an
main
search,
maybe
something
just
before.
They
know
that
it
is
like
it's
up
to
them.
You
know
it's
like
it's
nothing.
C
A
So,
for
me
she's
always
fine,
I
don't
have
objection.
I
just
think
that
you
need
to
be
more.
Do
you
know
address
his
concerns?
Maybe
I
don't
know
you
could
reach
ap
as
well?
It
doesn't
you
know
if
you
want
to
supplement
that,
how
italy
works
in
the
detail
or,
if
you'd
like
to
work
in
a
pull
request
and
to
propose
the
idea.
A
A
D
D
A
Yeah,
this
is
a
good
point.
Probably
iopuchi
here
helped
you
wanted
because
they
it's
like.
We
don't
have
according
to
issue
that
she
really
requires
that,
but
she,
I
think,
you're
right,
maybe
maybe
the
best
figure
here.
Maybe
we
can
discuss
that
too
much,
maybe
the
best
thing
here.
I
don't
know
if
you
agree.
It's
like
we
created
4.0
and
you
put
it-
is
there
to
make
it
clear
because
of
the
project
file.
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
C
Yeah
there
is
a
corner
case
well
right
now
we
to
identify
a
an
api.
We
have
three
fields
in
key
builder
group
version
and
kind,
there's
nothing
special
about
person
and
kind,
but
group
in
key
builder,
we
decided
to
divide
it
in
group
and
domain
so
that
the
user
doesn't
have
to
specify
the
my
domain
every
time
and
we
allow
in
in
plugin
version
3.
We
allow
either
the
group
or
the
domain
to
be
empty
in
case
one
of
them
is
empty.
The
full
group
will
be
the
other
one
in
case.
C
C
It's
not
like
really
a
high
priority
thing,
because,
because
I
think
that
the
all
the
core
resource
related
controller
needs
to
be
upgraded,
but
it
will
have
to
be
done
sometime.
B
So,
just
just
to
clarify,
we
are
saying
that
we
can't
reserve
the
name
core
for
coup
builders
like
internal
mechanisms
for
determining,
if
it's
an
internal
type
or
sorry.
D
C
The
thing
is
that
yeah
we
need
to
specify
somehow
to
to
use
core,
but
the
thing
is
that
it
won't
use
core.
It
doesn't
have
to
use
core,
as
the
group
in
the
group
version
kind
triplet,
that
q
builder,
that
kubernetes
has,
but
it
has
to
use
corp,
probably
for
as
an
important
or
things
like
that.
C
A
Yeah
my
situation
about
it
is
my
idea
is
like:
if
we
do
something
like
that,
create
api,
groupie
core
version,
the
kind
we
should
domain
injury
put.
It
don't
generate
the
resource
because,
if
you've
been
using
crazy
resources,
so
I'm
I'm
creating
my
resource,
I'm
not
using
one
that
she
is
there,
no
one.
A
B
I
don't
think
we
fully
agreed
on
that,
but
that
would
more
or
less
solve
this
issue,
because
the
gbk
flags
we're
talking
about
here
are
like
yeah.
Technically,
you
could
use
them
for
an
external
type,
but
they
do
confound
that
with
internal
types
that
you're
going
to
implement
and.
B
I
I
don't
know
if
I
don't
know
which
is
the
right
solution,
but
I
I
think
just
using
core
and
having
that
as
a
reserved,
keyword
or
group
is
fine
and.
C
Yeah,
the
thing
is
that
right
now,
in
order
to
consider
something
as
as
a
core
resource
it
has
to
it's,
it's
pretty
entangled.
It's
like
you,
don't
have
to
generate
generate
the
resource.
Like
camila
said
you
have
to
set
resource
falls,
then
you
don't.
You
need
to
be
in
a
list
of
groups
and
if
you're
in
a
list
of
groups,
then
you
have
to
check
something.
C
We
will
probably
need
to
add
it
for
a
future
use
case,
because
right
now,
the
only
external
types
that
we
are
allowing
at
scaffold
time
is
core
resources,
but
we
will
probably
want
to
also
accept
external
resources
as
a
whole.
So
we
will
probably
have
to
add
that
flag
later
on
so
yeah,
there
are
like
upsides
and
downsides.
B
B
A
B
A
A
Probably
I
I
agree,
because
if
we
start
to
do
like
it,
okay,
now
we
allow
ancient
group.
A
D
C
B
D
B
All
of
the
stuff,
the
discussions
that
we
had
in
the
closed
issue
and
make
a
new
one
close
this
one
out.
C
So
I
was
taking
the
last
of
the
really
required,
or
one
of
the
ones
that
we
considered
the
last
required
pull
request
for
version
3.
That
was
adding
the
immigration
guide
and
I
discovered
that
if
you
follow
the
same
steps
that
are
followed
to
generate
the
test
data
folder
for
project
version
to
multi-group,
but
using
config
version
3
that
it's
supported
by
by
the
version
2
plugin,
it
adds
everything
except
the
webcock
information
yeah,
because
we
are
not
updating
the
resource
in
the
webhook
go
version:
2
plugin.
D
C
C
No,
no,
no.
What
I
mean
what
I
mean
is
that
we
need
to
right
now.
Plugin
version
two
supports
two
different
config
files
version,
two
of
version
three
and
we
have
test
data
folders
for
version
2,
but
we
don't
have
test
data
folders
for
plugin
version
2,
but
config
version
3..
That
is
a
supported
option.
So
I
think
we
should
add
those,
but
that's
not
a
blogger
for
person.
3.0,
release.
A
Now
now
k
me
are
confusing
in
my
mind,
joshua
moments
like
the
the
crg
version
and
the
web
hook
version
for
we
choose
the
the
kubernetes
api
is
something
that
was
introduced
only
for
gold,
v3
plugin.
C
Or
the
the
second
example
that
that
text
that
break
config
file
is
a
copy
paste
from
the
version
three
multi-group.
That's
why
it
has
the
version
one.
I
I
didn't
change
that
one!
Okay,
should
we?
If
you
go,
if
you
go
a
bit
up,
I
also
missed
a
there.
You
know
a
bit
lower
yeah.
It
should
be
version
one
better
one.
If
you
go
a
bit
lower
to
the
start
of
the
second
project
file.
D
A
A
Nope
moving
forward
the
last
one
I
created
today,
we
need
you
guys
she
bumping
the
laces
release.
I
in
my
pocket
preview.
Cheese
need
to
be
before
the
three
dots
is
out
of
release.
It's
something
really
simple,
so
I
just
should
create
you
for
redirect
image.
A
D
There
is
a
pull
request
on
this.
It's
actually
blogged
on
the
approval
for
the
cube,
declarative
pattern.
A
D
Once
this
is
merged,
I
can
we
basically
generate
the
samples.
C
A
D
A
A
We
trying
to
do
in
3.0
and
just
speaking,
we
feed
the
other
mountains.
I
think
we
can
ping
it
in
and
you
ask
before
they
approve
that
one
if
he
not
possible,
it's
still
not
a
blocker
for
the
release
but
she's
very
desirable.
D
Yeah,
zero
dart
eight
actually
has
some
mug
fixes,
so
I
can
ping
them
again
and
ask
for
an
approval,
because
once
a
who
build
a
declarative
patent,
vr
is
merged.
This
is
just
regenerating
of
the
test
samples.
I
cannot
find
you
here.
Oh
it's
me
aries,
yeah,
that's
bad!.
A
A
C
You
yeah,
I'm
fine,
I'm
fine,
I'm
fine.
The
the
only
thing
that
I
was
worried
is
if
there
was
some
specific
change
that
we
needed
to
do.
If
it's
just
bumping
a
version,
I
think
it
will
be
useful
to
have
it
bumped
to
0.8,
because
that
would
mean
that
users
that
use
3.0
and
later
move
to
3.1
don't
have
to
do
that
manually.
So
that's
always
a
plus.
A
Sure
I
think
it
for
the
release.
Now
we
just
see.
Okay,
we
have
a
okay,
they
have
the
documentation,
but
to
the
documentation
it's
after
the
release.
Actually,
we
have
the
migration
doc.
That
say,
I
really
would
like
to
to
ask
your
help.
Folks,
we
have
the
movie
shark
that
one
that
she
eric.
He
has
a
pull
request
wedding,
it's
not
really
a
blocker,
but
we
would
like
to
achieve
before
the
bug
that
she
has
a
question:
marriage
and
the
cheese
one.
So
we
are
very,
I
hope,
very
close
to
to
do
that.