►
From YouTube: 20191023 - Image Builder Office Hours
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
Hello
and
welcome
to
the
Wednesday
October
23rd
edition
of
the
image
builder
office
hours,
a
sub-project
of
sake,
cluster
lifecycle,
just
a
reminder
that
this
meeting
does
it
here
to
the
kubernetes
code
of
conduct.
So
in
general,
please
be
excellent
to
one
another
and
we
are
recording
this
meeting,
so
it
will
be
published
on
YouTube
at
the
conclusion
of
this.
I
will
go
ahead
and
link
the
agenda
in
the
chat
for
anybody
who's
attending
live.
B
So
there
was
a
bit
of
discussion
previously,
but
from
what
I've
gathered
you
know,
I
could
very
well
be
wrong.
Here.
Is
that
versions
already
specified
for
daca
and
not
content
D
but
they're
in
visa?
So
no
there
is
testing
on
container
D,
but
they
don't
publish
versions
for
continuity.
So
maybe
that's
something
that
we
need
to
get
updated
on.
The
release
notes
understand
why
it
isn't
published,
but
just
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
the
matter.
Yeah.
A
A
So
without
having
that
kind
of
standards
driven
interoperability,
we
have
to
actually
test
and
validate
specific
versions
of
docker,
whereas
container
D
should
theoretically
just
work
because
it
complies
with
the
CRI
spec.
That
said
from
a
practical
standpoint,
the
the
reason
why
we
landed
on
container
D
when
implementing
the
end
of
us
provider,
cluster
API,
was
because
I
had
a
lot
of
practical
experience
in
the
past,
with
trying
to
maintain
compatibility
and
having
to
deal
with
it
over
docker
versions
and
in
the
past.
Docker
was
really
bad
about
introducing
breaking
changes,
even
in
patch
releases.
A
That
could
affect
the
compatibility
with
kubernetes
I.
Don't
know
if
that's
the
case
really
anymore,
because
well
I've
been
supporting
something.
That's
been
using
container
D
for
pretty
much
the
past
year
and
up
until
the
recent
issue
that
was
raised
with
the
image
builder,
repo
for
container
D
and
interaction
with
artifactory
repositories.
A
That's
the
first
issue
that
I've
been
aware
of
as
far
as
compatibility
and
interoperability
across
container
D
versions,
even
across
minor
versions,
a
container
D.
So
in
the
past
we
read
from
container
D
1.1
to
1.2
without
any
issues
and
was
only
in
this
1.3
release
and
the
way
that
interacts
with
artifactory
that
we
start
to
see
some
issues.
A
B
C
A
C
B
B
A
C
B
B
A
I
think
that's
one
differs
a
little
bit,
so
Aaron
is
working
with
somebody
who
has
there,
who
is
building
their
kind
of
own
binary
pipeline
and
image
pipeline
and
they're
hosting
that
specifically
in
ECR,
so
currently
he's
not
able
to
use
the
image
builder,
because
there's
no
way
when
creating
the
image
to
have
the
authentication
to
be
able
to
properly
pull
those
images.
So.
B
A
Yeah
I
think
that
makes
sense
because
longer
term
I
think
we're
going
to
see
I'm,
not
just
ECR,
but
other
consumers
that
are
you
know,
bought
into
specific
cloud.
Stacks
want
to
be
able
to
do
similar
things
with
their
cloud
stack
of
choice,
so
whatever
the
equivalent
is
for
the
JCR
repos
and
the
what
Azure
offers
for
private
repositories
were
likely
to
see.
A
Similar
requirements
come
down
there
so
I
think
longer
term.
Having
a
some
type
of
extension
point
or
you
know,
extensibility
feature
that
we
can
use
for
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
think
what
type
I
think?
What
timeline
we
look
at
for
being
able
to
provide
that
may
determine
whether
or
not
we
should
allow
the
the
interim
support
that
Aaron
is
asking
for,
though,.
B
B
B
So
that
should
allow
basically
attacking
all
the
ansible
playbooks
and
conflicts
and
everything
required
to
run
the
image
processing
in
the
binary
and
then
having
just
the
mana
is
that
you
can
distribute
and
release
and
not
like
having
to
throne
and
worry
about
the
microphones
and
no
stops
of
things
so
that
one
I
can
take
on.
The
question
is
who
can
gonna
take
on
other
icons
or
who
has
only
wordnet
to
take
on
some
of
those
other
worden
apartments?
We
discussed
the
last
dominant.
C
I
know
I,
agree
with
that
item.
As
a
priority
item
I
know,
we've
got
the
the
CL
IPR
there
and
I
know
it's
next
agenda,
but
I
wanted
to
apologize
for
not
having
had
the
time
to
review
it.
Yet
I
mean
is
something
I'm
interested
in
specifically
and
so
I
very
much
want
to
take
a
look
at
it,
and
but
I
am
able
to
dedicate
a
good
bit
of
my
time
to
this,
despite
what
I
just
said,
if
not
having
that
the
time
the
last
two
weeks.
C
C
A
Right
now,
I'm,
probably
mostly
subscribed
for
closer
API
related
work,
so
I'm
happy
to
do
mostly
I'm,
probably
only
available
for
reviews
and
maybe
and
resolving
any
issues
that
directly
impact
cluster
API
at
this
time.
I
don't
know
that
I
can
take
on
anything
any
additional
work
or
specific
to
the
image
builder
right
now
would.
B
So
it
is
quite
it's
really
just
almost
the
interfaces
at
the
moment.
I
do
have
a
better
introduction
that
I'm
going
to
bring
it
so
back
up
a
sensible
record
and
then
also
emu
and
confident
in
the
rapper.
So
there
are
quite
a
few
steps
on
the
seer
now,
hopefully,
I
can
have
that
ready,
perhaps
for
a
demo
by
the
next
meeting,
but
any
feedback
on
the
initial
work
is
very
appreciated.
The
only
thing
that
Timothy
didn't
mention
was
discovery
of
the
options
for
each
type
of
cloud.
C
Yeah
again
I'm
not
to
apologize
for
not
looking
at
it.
I
know
that
there
is
basically
just
said:
I
feel
like
there's
a
packer
command
that
spits
out
all
the
variables,
though,
if
you
give
it
a
template,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
also
includes,
if
you're,
adding
a
bunch
of
you
know
extra
bar
files,
whether
it
would
include
those
or
not
I,
think
it's
only
whatever
is
in
the
base.
Template.