►
From YouTube: SIG Cluster Lifecycle - kubeadm office hours 2022-08-31
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Basically,
the
api
that
was
in
this
this
first
prototype
is
was
defined
around
the
idea
of
operation.
I
want
to
do
this
operation
and
this
is
kind
of
imperative.
I
tell
you
the
action
that
you
have
to
do.
Instead,
we
have
to
the
the
one
of
the
feedback-
I
don't
remember,
it
came
from
to
sinclair
or
someone
else
was
okay,
but
the
operator
at
the
end.
It
is
expected
to
drive
the
system
to
a
desired
state
and
our
api
does
not
allow
to
define
this
desired
state.
B
A
Right
yeah,
I
cannot
remember
this
discussion,
but
basically
yet
tim
was
going
for
a
declarative
proposal
for
everything
but
like
to
me,
and
you
have
a
discussion
that
it's
actually
not
possible,
for
example,
certificates
certificate
rotations,
there's
nothing
in
an
api
that
what
what
can
you
pin
inside
an
api
to
say?
Okay,
rotate,
my
certificates,
perhaps
a
date
or
something
like
that,
but
it
was,
I
think
we
got
blocked
on
the
discussion,
mostly
so
yeah.
A
And
I
remember:
you
eventually
removed
the
code
from
the
cube
dm
repo.
I
you
showed
the
demo.
I
think
the
demo
was
absolutely
fine.
Personally,
I
think
the
imperative
approach
is
fine
and
I
think
users
can
consume
it.
The
way
it
is
declarative.
You
know
the
clarity
for
the
sake
of
following
the
kubernetes
patterns.
For
this
thing
you
know
I
was
not
convinced
that
it
gives
us
any
benefits.
B
B
Gives
it
gives
a
lot
of
benefits
because
at
the
end,
when
you
want
to
define
an
operation-
and
you
want
to
move
your
system
from
one
state
to
another,
you
need
to
know
the
current
state.
So
declarative
means
that
basically,
you
have
a
representation
of
the
current
state
of
the
system
and
currently
kuben
mean,
does
not
provide
this
or
provide
this
partially
because
it
has
only
cluster
configuration,
but
it
does
not
provide
node
configuration,
etc,
etc.
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
A
D
Oh
okay,
can
you
hear
me
probably?
No?
Oh,
yes,
better,
better,
okay,
so
I
I
just
said
that
I
am
the
review
stage.
I
do
not
know
what
exactly
I
am
planning
to
do.
The
nasio
is
a
new
project
proposed
in
linux
foundation
by
google
and
other
providers,
mostly
cloud
providers,
and
they
wanted
something
to
do
with
customization
for
the
5g
radio.
A
D
A
A
B
A
Yes
and
you
I
remember
tim
saying
that
hey
we
can
create
this
proof
of
concept
in
the
repository
and
but
basically
later
he
reviewed
and
said
that
it
has
to
be
declarative.
I
personally
agree.
First,
I'm
still
exactly
clear:
how
are
we
going
to
do
certificate
rotation
declaratively?
But
if
paco
has
some
ideas,
we
can
put
them
in
a
cab
like
a
cap.
Iteration
could
actually
rewrite
the
kept,
so
we
can
first
agree
on
it
to
be
declarative.
A
B
B
B
D
B
D
D
So
if
you
say
cubelet
and
one
more,
then
it's
a
challenge,
but
if
it
is
a
drivers,
simply
a
plug-in
with
a
driver,
different
driver.
Maybe
I
will
revisit
this.
I
will
go
to
cluster
api
meetings
and
then
still
get
some
information.
It's
there
in
next
hour,
I'll,
try
to
find
out
some
information
and
share,
but
you
are
right.
One
and
two
is
doable.
Third,
with
respect
to
cluster
api,
we
cannot
say
whether
they
will
be
able
to
use
it
here
on
that.
C
Thank
you,
okay.
Now
my
microphone
should
work.
I
have
a
similar
takedown
for
pizza.
I
think
we
probably
literally
minus
the
way
to
have
a
good
idea.
How
mutability
and
class
api
should
work
if
we
actively
work
on
it,
which
you
currently
not
really
or
not
yet
so
it's
really
hard
to
guess
what
we
actually
want
to
do
and
how
that
operator
could
fit
in
or
not.
A
A
I
think
we'll
have
a
like
a
fairly
solid
user
base
of
this
approach,
and
I
also
think
that
the
keep
spray
will
adapt
the
operator
they
currently
have
some.
As
far
as
I
know,
in
terms
of
upgrade,
you
know
managed
upgrades
by
the
high
level
2
and
rotational
certificates.
They
actually
have
some
ansible
script.
A
A
So
perhaps
we
should,
by
you
know,
looking
at
this
discussion
with
backwards
in
the
quest
api
issue.
Perhaps
we
should
consider
whether
the
cubed
m
operator
will,
as
it
is
with
the
demonstrated
approach,
will
have
a
user-based
investor
appear
like
a
completely
custom
solution
that
people
can
install
if
they
want,
or
is
it
like
a
really
bad
idea
to
use
this
event
for
outside
of
kubernetes
and
the
kubernetes
user
base
for
cube
spray
for
costly?
B
B
B
A
B
B
Kind
of
a
step
back
and
and
design
and
decide.
Okay,
where
we
are
going,
is
motivated.
How
much
would
we
want
would
ability
to
to
be
part
of
the
puzzle
at
which
level
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
et
cetera?
So
I
understand
that
that
time,
I'm
really
talking
about
a
grand
vision,
but
that's
it.
If
we
have
a
direction,
then
we
cannot
execute,
but
without
a
direction.
It
will
be
really
hard
that,
at
the
end
of
the
of
the
story,
the
all
the
pieces
fit
together.
A
So
I
wonder
if,
if
we
we
hold,
if
we
decide
to
hold
on
the
cluster
api
contention
around
mutability,
do
you
think
that
we
can
actually
produce
a
design
that
is
going
to
be
doable
in
the
future?
Because
I'm
also
considering
the
the
you
know
contributor
time
he
has
this?
He
works
for
a
cloud
provider
in
china.
They
have
the
use
case
where
they
want
to
easily
upgrade
big
questions
with
an
operator.
A
B
B
So
I
I
understand
that
a
paco
effort
and
it
started
from
a
prototype
that
was
dropped
and
deleted
for
reasons
and
yeah
now
he's
asking
feedback,
we
can
provide
feedback,
but
at
the
end,
if
he
is
willing
to
understand
to
listen
to
feedback,
that's
fine
and
probably
we
can
reconcile
these
to
the
seek
view.
Otherwise
it
is
a
personal
project.
It's
not
a
sig
project.
A
A
B
A
I
saw
that
jason
defended
the
immutable
approach
with
basically
someone
who
works
for
tinkerbell.
I
think
he
still
works
for
that.
He
basically
said
that
it's
like
much
better
to
rotate
the
hardware
instead
of
doing
multiple
changes
on
machines.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
seeing
the
use
cases
in
question
api,
but
maybe
the
you
know
use
cases
elsewhere.
A
B
Let's
take
a
step,
so
I
think
that
the
idea
of
the
clarity,
in
my
opinion
makes
sense,
but
this
was
a
feedback
given
two
years
ago
to
the
to
the
first
design
of
the
first
very
first
prototype
of
this
thing.
So
if
paco
is
believes,
that
is
that
his
current
design
is
robust,
a
cover,
a
set
of
use
case,
can
be
used.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
So,
yes,
I
think
we
should
go
to
the
wider
ship
discussion
for
this
one
in
terms
of
getting
this
into
a
kubernetes.
Seek
repository,
compare
contrast
to
getting
into
the
cubed
repo
again,
I
think
we're
just
running
in
circles
like
putting
it
back
into
the
report,
I'm
personally
minus
one
on
that
and
we
can
just
keep
it
in
partners
repository.
It
doesn't
matter
in
my
opinion.
If
the
project
we
dropped
the
idea
entirely,
we
might
as
well
just
keep
it
as
a
fork
on
the
park.
A
He's
probably
going
to
watch
this
vote
vod,
but
like
so
my
immediate
response
should
be
that
we
are
pointing
to
the
next
meeting
and
we
just
we
are
not
sure
what
to
do
with
the
design
at
this
point
but
yeah,
but
if
he
wants
to,
he
can
use
it
in
his
use
case.
The
way
it
is,
and
nobody
will
complain
it's
just
that
we
as
a
sig,
we
don't
want
to
use
it
the
way.
It
is
right
now.
B
A
A
Well,
we
have
to
hopefully
when
we
open
the
discussion
about
the
operator
in
the
sig
meeting.
We
will
have
some
representatives
from
cluster
api
where
we
can
discuss.
One
of
the
major
blockers
for
this
operator
is
to
also
you
know,
handle
the
quest
api
immutability
problem.
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
what
you
mean,
but
you
know,
hopefully
we
continue
discussion
on
this
part
more.