Add a meeting Rate this page

A

Okay, let's start the kobe builder triage meeting today, it's 9 of february 20 21, please don't say nothing that you feel not comfortable to be in the internet in the posterity, the first one.

A

It's an issue, headache uh reopening!

A

I made a comment. um I understood that she it's missing. um We build uh another archetype of the two, but maybe eddie. Could you like to to explain yourself.

B

Yeah, uh 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 uh and test for your architecture for arm64.

B

So I reopened this and submitted a pr to the tools releases branch that have got it's gotten a few reviews already uh and should be merged soon. Okay,.

A

So for me to show us perfect: um let's put, we can put it 3-1 unless someone has a projection.

B

I would or.

A

Next should be done.

B

Well, it should probably be done before we cut three zero staple.

C

Actually, it doesn't really matter because it's in the other two in the other branch, isn't it.

A

Yes, I think it next.

B

To me it is, but if you like, if we release 3-0 stable and somebody downloads the binary for arm and tries to start a project locally, they won't be able to because the appropriate binaries don't exist.

A

But do you think it is, would you be a blocker for the 3.0 release.

B

Yes,.

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 uh 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

Present anyway yeah it will probably be merged before three zero zero. So I would put it in that milestone.

A

I think he, I think it's okay, we're pushing 3.0, uh and he, if here we came that she always done it for the release. uh We can judge it. You know um movie, it is one for the next one has no problem until I believe we know uh so, would you be fine, the other one? Would you be accepted.

A

I think you told you that it has the request service. I think it is one. So it's fine.

A

So this one is from whatever do is here? Would you like to to describe.

A

Algeria.

C

Sorry I was mute.

D

Which.

C

One was that.

A

uh This one is allow every comment to override.

C

Well, I don't know, I think it was a couple meetings ago or talking with someone in private time- I'm not sure, but we said that it would be interesting to be able to override the plugins that is defined in the layout in the project configuration file for a certain command.

C

For example, I have three controllers, and only one of them is using the declarative pattern when I'm able to to add a plugin to to have this declarative pattern, I don't want it to have for the whole project, because only one of the controllers followed the data broad, so I only want to use it for the create ap command for that one for that specific one, so the idea was to be able to if you provide a plugins, a the plugins flag.

C

When you are doing google a create ap command, it will override the one that is configured in the in the project file in the one that you specify that in it, and will only be valid for that project. For that command call.

A

I I put it here the the example that you put so, let's see if I will understand so, if he, for example, I use a copy builder, create api. Let's forget to choose one, but you put just the extra so I would use the extra plugin to do the command is that.

C

Only for that one, yes yeah, the next one, the next keybuilder create ap, will not the extra plugin only that one that is specifying.

A

That one okay yeah, I put here some some questions like ah yo answered.

C

Your.

A

Face that has.

C

Been recently yeah so.

A

Yeah yeah um yeah, my questions are: are you making? I don't know if you wanted to speak about that, but my question was like: um 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 uh enabling chaining plugins and this con, and this issue is not talking about the chain of plugins.

C

It's talking only that for a certain command, I'm able to override the plugins for that command. I it doesn't matter if it's only one or if it's multiple of them this issue. I think no, no, there's no pull request that that solves this issue already, but I I don't think it will be that hard.

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

I think we shouldn't mix those two topics.

C

I don't know if I was clear enough or and.

D

Used over writing with the flag is very common of ctl eyes, so it makes logical sense that if I pass in plug-in, I want you to use what I've specified here.

C

Yeah yeah, that's the basic idea. Yeah I mean you do q builder in it with some plugins and those will be used by default. But if you specify some plugins, I I want you to use those ones for this space.

A

My program, only if that is like- probably not my concern actually, which is the best award, is like, for example, how we initialize a project with the golang layout. Then I use it the helmet plugin to create api, for example, so how we can ensure that one thing is compatible with another.

C

Oh, you have to trust the user.

D

Yes, in this case, I can't you know, hide the sharp edges. You told me to do something and I'm doing exactly what you told me the fact that you told me to jump off a bridge and it's dangerous.

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 uh in the ci to ensure that nothing is broke.

C

Yeah but but training plugins is I mean you are overwriting the plugin, so obviously you have to trust the user and that he knows what he's doing, but the same thing that when you provide a force flag or or something like that, you have to trust the user that he knows what he's doing and if you are trying to scaffold an api with the helm, one and another one with the ansible one and another one with the bass plugin and they are not compatible.

C

I mean the user told you to do that. He will know what to do to to over to make them work together or it won't be the default behavior. The user is specifically telling you. I want you to use these plugins for this case, so he knows what he's doing or he should know what he's doing.

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

Is the.

A

Musical.

C

Thing is that, right now we don't have that many plugins, because plugins cannot be changed. So basically, we only have the base plugins and the one that operator sdk offers that are like wrappers around the base plugins.

C

But when we do enable chaining plugins, we will have certain things. For example, imagine the the declarative add-on that we have right now, it's it's not in the uh plugin right now. Well, it's a as an old plugin.

C

It changed two files and there's a a couple test data projects that use that pattern. The addon pattern. They are making a couple changes over there over the base, plugin and that will be when plugins are able to be chained. They will be separate plugins.

C

So, for example, if I only want to use that for one controller and not for the rest, I think that's a valid use case and the user should be able to to do that. I don't know I I.

A

Think that the partner one, that's the one that we having the kobe builder, the each other.

D

Yeah.

C

That right now, it's not our uploading as we know them, it's an old system plugin, but it will be uploading someday when, when phase 1.5 is merged, probably one of the things that the other issue- the enhancement proposal for phase a 1.5, actually implements the addon pattern as a plugin to test that we are able to change plugins and we obtain what we want.

A

Okay, so, but but for that, you want the partner one, do you we really need, allow anything like the hr. We could, for example, um just allow one plugin. Would you be like what I'm trying to say is it's possible? We reduce this scope like makes his less generic.

A

Science, ceo haven't been working for that. I believe.

D

Camilla is your worry that, if plug, if I pass in the plugins flag- and I have plug-in a comma plug-in b and b- is not compatible with a is that the concern, or is it more the concern that if I pass in b, but I've already scaffold it with a then.

D

Yeah.

A

That might be not compatible.

D

After the word.

A

My concern is how we, because okay, if we allow that, we need to find a way to track the information that she, uh the action x, was made with another plugin. Not so if he did the full plugin, because now we cheese is one point, because how how you can recreate today, all this stuff from the config.

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, uh for example, I have a b c, then a requires input. A the b requires input to be ngc required. Input is g.

A

How we will ensure that the all inputs was done properly before run the three plugins. You know the great comments.

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 uh 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.

C

In that sense, it means that they are not compatible and it will stop the command.

A

Okay, but to exchange it doesn't allow. For example, I call three plugins three create apis for different three plugins. Just allow us overrides the the implementation that you use.

A

The idea now is just so very much instead of using, for example, what I'm trying to say is. Instead, I use the crazy uh api from cheeseburging. I use it from cheese, plugin.

C

Yeah yeah. Imagine that the second in the second one in the create api there's only one there's only the extra one.

A

Just in one yeah, okay yeah, it is because if we, the other concern, was like, if we can do a chain like you know, a first aim b. If a has a group as input into b, has a group as input yeah, we ask it twice or.

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 uh the common ones need to be provided by the key itself.

C

The resources created by the the group domain and kind and version flags are not added by a plugin, but by the cli itself the click creates the resource and the resource is passed to each of the plugins, instead of being one of the plugins, the one that creates the resource, but as we are telling that's a concern from the chaining of plugins, that's not from from this point of view.

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. uh Do you know solving jesse, that's another, that we have now the partner one and you you know.

C

I can change the example to consider only the pattern, one. It's it's not that's, not the issue of this pull request, that's obviously an issue, but that's an issue for from the other pull request from the chaining one.

C

I will change the example to to have only one over there.

C

Which is the number of of issue of that one? 941? Okay, 1941.

A

So I I didn't really know if I got you know the partner one that she just had to clarify for the others as well. We have I don't plug in and you to see if I understood it properly too, we have it inside your own plugin if the user decided to choose the edge on partner.

A

The controller is this call follows with another logic and other data, um 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

So I understand that she is one one of the things that she could solve. It was that your problem, like we make that uploading and you use it here, but yeah. I think I misunderstood.

C

Yeah, the idea of this one is just to be able to override the plugin and the other one. The other pull request. The other ep enhancement proposal is to change plugins. This one is just override them.

C

It won't matter if we do it one before the other one. If we allow to change plugins first and then we do this one, then this will have to support obviously chaining plugins, but that's this is only about the plugin resolution algorithm.

C

The the thing is that, right now you are you, you have to select some plugins and they will be used for all your project and the idea is to be able to override them temporarily for a single command. That's.

A

All.

C

That that issue is saying.

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 uh do you know how you are make it clear that we we don't ensure the compatibility?

A

Do you know how we don't we don't we allow the user to do, but we are not responsible for to ensure that the plugin a works within the layout to be, for example,.

C

But that's that's uh 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 uh be aware, uh know what you are doing, because we cannot ensure it's all like something, maybe an uh 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.

A

We cannot ensure that the cheese is compatible with cheese.

C

But that will be true also if you change plugins for the whole uh project. If you do a google keybuilder in it with two plugins in a chain, you will have the same issue.

A

Yes, exactly we are having the same issue. I agree.

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? uh Maybe I don't know you could reach uh 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 uh and to propose the idea.

A

The final idea, I don't know what to others. Other things. If someone has any objection at all so to choose.

A

Are you, okay, with the teachers who is in genetic as well.

B

Sure yeah.

A

No.

D

That.

B

Sounds like a good idea.

A

So I think we can put you accepted.

A

And the idea is accepted in a way, I think nobody has objections, and today we can work on discussing in the details of the implementation.

C

Sounds okay.

A

um Somewhere, you.

D

Got accepted.

A

The milestone, I think it may be next year, we don't need you to compromise.

C

Yeah because, probably as we require a config change, we will have to wait for version 4 of the config file, so it will have to go to next year.

D

Yeah.

A

Yeah, this is a good point. uh 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

Yeah, I think that once we release 3.0 and we consider them stable, we should create both config version, 4 alpha and plug-in go for alf version 4 alpha, so that the breaking changes are are there, but that's after the release. So I wouldn't worry about that right now.

A

We can put here as well. I think it has one I'm trying to find a way for reality. Blockage, maybe because we cannot see we cannot emerge it is now do you know. We cannot do this at this moment, so we need to wait for the next. She.

C

I mean accept it and with the next milestone should be okay. For me,.

A

Yeah joshuachi maybe hear something like as we discuss.

A

So requires.

A

Change.

A

Don't break.

A

It.

D

Let's see plugging.

A

And today the council of.

A

Cheese.

A

Is it.

A

Okay,.

A

This makes sense.

C

Yes, sir,.

A

That's it for wait, don't forget that.

D

Okay, so the next one.

A

Actually cause this one yo.

D

Okay,.

A

So would you like to speak about this one, it's yours so.

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

None of them aren't they will be joined by adult, but the thing is that there is a special case, a special group in the court types that uses a completely empty, a group or, in this case group and domain, the the the empty string- and we don't support it right now, because we require at least one of them, one of the group or the domain to be specified this for the core ap core group type group api.

C

So basically we need to. We need to have a default for for it in the places that we need to.

C

For example, this combination of group class domain is used to as an import, alias in some places that can't be empty or other things like that. That need to be considered, and we need to allow this so that we can create, for example, controllers for bots of our namespace or for fields like that.

C

It's not uh 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, uh 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

A.

B

Native type to kubernetes.

C

The thing is that uh 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

Yeah.

D

We will have to research.

C

Some word and probably chorus. There is the one that we need to do.

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

So if he we put keys like he know, for resources created the controller like I want to create a controller for a kubernetes api. They, in my opinion, we could shake it into this list. Yeah.

D

Probably.

C

Probably we can we can take in in the list and if it was there accepted.

C

The thing is that probably we have to special case that in a lot of places, because the resource as stored in the config file should not have core as the group so that it doesn't mix them, but it should have core, as the group when it's passed to the templates, because we don't want the templates to scaffold apis without any alias.

C

So it will be a lot of special cases here and over there. It just needs to be done.

B

Wasn't there another issue open for handling external types.

C

There are probably several about them.

B

I think there was where we were discussing like an extra flag to pass the import path for an external type.

B

uh 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 um 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 uh I I think just using core and having that as a reserved, keyword or group is fine and.

D

Scaffolding.

B

That is the config file, the project config and then, when we read that and we see okay, this is core, then treat it as a core group and remove the group string from gbk.

C

Yeah, the thing is that right now, in order to consider something as uh 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

Where else and that's like pretty messy and probably adding a flag will be cleaner from an implementation point of view, but will also require an ap change, so the user will have to say that that's that's external.

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 uh 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

Right.

C

So I would, I would.

B

Say like no, don't even worry about this dash group core edge case right now, and we should focus on solving this external type problem. In the general case,.

A

Yeah.

B

I agree.

A

I agree, I think I think we closed that discussion, because that discussion was made in an issue that she was another subject, so maybe the best she came.

A

Maybe one idea of the suggestion for we moving forward to is like we created what issue supports external types and to put the information, how we would like to support christian attack, um the ideas that we had before do you know angel. We started to discuss there. What is the best approach?

A

Probably I I agree, because if we start to do like it, uh okay, now we allow ancient group.

A

We can end up in one situation that we allow things that don't make sense away from the goal at all. You know like we didn't if we focus in the problem, what is the problem allows sternotypes? Then we can provide a appropriate solution.

C

Sounds good to me.

D

So.

B

So do we do we want to close this issue in favor of the general case solution issue for external types, yeah.

C

Sure.

B

Let me let me find that.

C

I think it was discussed in a in a issue called changes for breaking changes for version 3, or something like that that helped like multiple discussions in the same thread, including.

D

The break.

C

Config files- and things like that, so it is probably close due to some pull requests that part of it probably erasing a new issue would be a better solution.

B

Yeah, um actually, we can even keep this issue open. uh Now, it's probably better to open anyone. I can.

D

Copy.

B

All of the uh stuff, the discussions that we had in the closed issue and make a new one close this one out.

C

Yeah, I think that would be the best approach.

A

Can I close the cheese one or would you like it to keep cheese open to remain beautiful.

C

I think that we can close it if we support yeah.

B

Completely.

C

External types that would include this solution, too.

B

Yeah all comments with a link to the new one.

A

Okay don I apologize.

A

For you, you know, will you receive the notification for your novel, which is one.

A

So the next one I did would you like to speak about.

C

They are all for me today.

A

Yeah, it's just going again. You come to butch a lot so.

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 uh information yeah, because we are not updating the resource in the webhook uh go version: 2 plugin.

C

It's a really really small change that I already submitted a pull request. If I'm not mistaken,.

D

Yeah.

C

It's like four lines of code, so I think that can be reviewed pretty easily.

A

Ioputy, I think it is a blocker for the 3-0 unless someone.

C

Well, the real problem that I think that we need to solve here, too, is that the test data doesn't cover that case that case being project version, a plugin version 2 with config version 3 files. So I think we should probably need to add those test cases to to the test data folder.

A

I'm not sure if they follow the the last statement, because they, yes, the plugin, the v2 plugin, then you have the web hook person and you also don't you have the crg version.

C

No, they do have the crd version. You can check.

A

Yeah exactly they have it, but is that it has only one option. It's true.

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 uh for we choose the the kubernetes api is something that was introduced only for gold, v3 plugin.

A

It's not a new feature for gold v2, I'm wrong.

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.

C

You see here that I it's also spread version. Three multi-group, okay, okay,.

D

I use.

C

It to copy paste- and I didn't change that- that I will- I will update my my issue right now,.

A

No, no problem, no problem, just if just you to see, if you misunderstand something or in some moments we change something that you should not just be sure. But it's fine! It's fine for me. It's all fine. Anyone has any objection, or would you like to say something.

A

Nope moving forward the last one I created today, uh we need you guys she bumping the laces release. I in my pocket preview. uh Cheese need to be before the three dots is out of release. It's something really simple, um so I just should create you for redirect image.

A

I think.

D

There is a pull request on this. uh It's actually blogged on the uh approval for the cube, declarative pattern.

A

Chase one: let's see.

A

Okay,.

D

Once this is merged, uh I can we basically generate the samples.

A

Okay, so we need to, we need to speak. We feed spontaneous jesus, choose one io.

D

Why is this.

C

Needed for the release, that's a question. I'm not I'm not saying that we don't need it, but I I would like to know why it is needed. I.

A

I think it's not a blocker, as you said in my humble pinot, is not a blocker but should be desirable.

C

Yeah, probably because if we don't update it now, it will be a breaking change for now on so version 3 will always have to stay on zero or seven, but I just wanted to know if there was a special point that we wanted to address with this bump in persons.

A

Let's see if he burns it, when you you're trying to bump in here, did you find any breaker change.

D

um There were no braking changes, but uh the dependencies the changes in the bump of dependencies there's no much breaking change here, which uh needs attention.

A

Okay, yeah, I cannot see yeah so so. Okay, theoretically, so so far, shows that she we also could bump in 3.1 as well, um but she yeah.

C

The problem, the problem bumping in 3.1 will be that projects that are scaffolded with version 3.0 will never get a bump in the control runtime version, unless the user does it manually.

A

Yeah, the 3.0, no just the 3.1.

A

So what do you think about.

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 uh if he not possible, it's still not a blocker for the release but she's very desirable.

D

uh Yeah, zero dart uh eight actually has some mug fixes, so I can uh ping them again uh 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

Yeah, you are nothing the org. Would you like to take chase one science you'll? Have the puja question read it.

D

Yeah I'll assign this to myself.

A

Thank you version.

A

And then what do you think we can put you accept you here for don't come back and you? What do you think he do? You agree with putin 3.0 until you or do.

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, uh 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.

A

So really, thank you for all collaboration. Ajiro has doing a terrific work and she doing a lot of changes required before we achieved his goal. So really thank you for all.

A

Has someone would like to say something before we finish.

A

Or ask something I'm good. Thank you.

A

Really. Thank you folks, for.

B

All sure thing, thanks for having me.

A

See you the next one bye.

D

Bye.

D

You.
youtube image
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).