►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG K8s Infra - 20220119
Description
A
Cloud
so
hi
everyone.
This
is
january,
19
20
22..
This
is
the
first
meeting
of
gateshead
fra
of
the
year,
so
just
a
reminder
that
this
meetings
is
under
those
kubernetes
code
of
contracts.
So
if
you
have
any
issue,
be
sure
to
con
conduct,
add
case
dot,
io
and
please
be
excellent
to
each
other
dures
teams
meeting.
B
B
Hey
there,
how
you
guys
doing
I'm
benjamin
coles,
I
work
over
at
apple
and
you
know,
I'm
pretty
sure,
like
a
lot
of
people
that
want
to
come
jump
in
and
get
involved
that
you
know
I'm
here
to
help.
But
you
know
I'm
just
a
little
bit
different
and
the
way
that
I
stand
out
is
I
worked
on
the
gen
2
project,
which
is
an
open
source
distribution,
and
so
I
do
have
history
working
in
open
source
and
I'm
not
just
easy
to
scare
away.
I
plan
on
sticking
around
I'll.
B
So
let's
say
we're
finance
decisioning
systems.
Right
I
was
over
in
is
t
previously
and
then
I
went
over
to
aci
and
now
I'm
over
in
the
the
finance
work
and
the
whole
like
target
in
there
is:
how
do
we
reduce
waste
and
save
the
company
money?
So
I
hear
that's
a
lot
of
what
you
guys
are
trying
to
do
here
too.
A
B
A
A
Thanks
james,
can
you
share
the
screen,
I
mean
the
building
we
brought
give
me
up
just
so.
I
can
basically
get
through.
A
G
D
F
G
Okay,
share
screen:
share
yeah.
Can
you
see
it.
A
G
Okay,
can
I
stop
sharing
now
or
do
you
want
me
to
share
something
else.
G
So
I
know,
when
does
the
the
yearly
budget
end
do
you
know?
Is.
F
C
We
will
have
conversations,
I
believe,
sometime
by
july
or
june
or
july,
so
for
for
ongoing
for
the
next
year,
ready
for
that.
C
For
it
yeah
because
it
comes,
it's
been
coming
in
three-year
sets,
and
so
this
is
the
time
for
us
to
to
have
that
conversation
for
the
next
three
years,
and
so
the
budget
and
the
things
and
understanding
how
that
flows
would
be.
These
are
it's
gonna,
be
critical
to
have
all
the
information
we
need
to
frame
that
conversation
well,.
A
I
think
tim
is
supposed
to
take
care
of
that
and
provide
all
the
information
if
I'm
not
wrong.
I
think
it's
already
provide
all
those
information
in
december
because
they
reach
out
and
inside
google
about
this.
A
G
I
do
have
a
question:
did
we
make
progress
on
trying
to
figure
out
where
the
costs
are
going
for
the
downloads?
I
guess
kate's
artifacts
fraud.
A
You
mean
the
I
think.
Last
year
we
identified,
I
think,
apa
folks
identify
where
the
basically,
where
the
cost
the
the
traffic
is
coming
from,
and
I
think
not
right
now
is
I'm
going
to
talk
about
this
in
the
first
item.
Basically,
we
need
to
try
to.
A
A
Okay,
so
the
main
item
is
basically
the
migration
of
all
the
artifacts
produced
by
the
community
to
get
infra
so
ap
submit
a
cap
about
this,
and
cigarettes
is
the
owner
of
that.
We
had
a
conversation
about
this
yesterday
and
they,
I
think,
they're
supposed
to
have
another
conversation
about
this
next
week
with
cigarettes.
A
C
I
I
think
that
we
had
some
really
good
conversations
with
stephen
augustus
and
there's
a
thread
that
we
started
on
the
kids
emperor
channel
inviting
them
to
come
today.
But
we
will
have
an
ongoing.
A
C
We
need
to
have
a
working
group
meeting,
and
so
my
hope
is
that
we
could
use
this
time
or
or
maybe
poke
a
little
more
in
the
thread
to
go
ahead
and
schedule
that
time
so
that
we
can
get
it
to
a
consensus
on
the
on
the
policy,
because
without
the
policy
defined
that's
kind
of
what
we
have
several
different
technical
solutions
lined
up
to
to
run
with.
But
we
need
to
go
ahead
and
using
this
kept
as
an
alignment.
C
C
It'd
be
great
to
have
it.
I
think
one
of
the
difficulties
has
been
is
because
it's
multi
sig
trying
to
get
the
the
the
consensus
and
and
and
collaboration
on
for
for
sign
off
this
is
taken
longer
than
than
as
I'm
learning
how
to
connect
all
of
the
the
groups
together.
So
suggestions
are
welcome.
I
think
this.
C
This
last
call
that
I
was
on
with
infrastructure,
sorry,
sig
release
engineering
was
very
beneficial
and
and
the
and
the
stepping
up
of
both
coal
about
both
of
the
chairs.
The
co-chairs
for
that
to
schedule.
This
new
meeting
is
positive,
but
I
I
don't
see
them
here
today,
so
we'll
need
to
swing
back
around
for
that.
H
A
little
bit
here,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
we
probably
should
not
allow
it
to
get
that
bogged
down
on
this
like
sig
release
today
doesn't
define
how
gcr
works
internally,
that's
out
of
scope.
The
contract
is
like
we
provide.
A
registry
releases,
are
built
and
pushed
to
it.
If
we
provide
something
that
meets
that
goal,
I
don't
see
where
the
sign
off
is.
A
H
A
H
H
A
Not
that
I
think
that's
what
that's,
why
ap
want
a
conversation,
a
kind
of
working
group
between
kids
and
friends
and
securities,
and
we
can
decide
kate
sanchez-
doesn't
need
to
be.
In
that
conversation
he
really.
H
What
I'm
looking
for
is
you
know?
Where
did
we
get
stuck?
It
sounds
like
the
policy
deals
with
more
so
than
like
the
problem
is
we
can't
set
on
the
implementation
details,
but
those
shouldn't
need
to
provided.
A
H
A
H
A
H
F
H
We
so
if
we
can
move
forward
without
kept,
I
think
we
need
to
clear
that
up
here
so
that
we
we
can
move
forward
and,
if
not,
I
guess
I'm
missing
what
it
is
that
works
that
we
can't
move
forward
because
of
ben.
H
Different
ways,
I
think
you
know
everyone
that
has
any
vested
interest
in
this
is
going
to
want
to.
You
know
sign
off
on
the
like
the
final
details
in
the
policy
and
rolling
it
out
and
things,
but
I
don't
think
that's
a
blocker
for
saying
look.
We
have
something
and
then
negotiating
the
remaining.
I'm
gonna.
G
A
H
H
A
A
We
can
have.
They
are
not
the
options
we
had
in
the
first
conversation
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
We
can
have
multiple
and
technical
implementation
we
can
have,
because
for
the
clarification
of
conversation,
the
first
conversation
we
had
about
this
was
either
we
have
mirrors
or
a
portrait
cache
system,
but
they
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
We
can
do
both
at
the
same
time
and
we
can
basically
use
both
in
different
ways.
It's
not
blocking.
H
A
H
A
H
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
We
go
okay,
we're
done
so
so
this
is
fine.
So
so
it
sounds
like
what
we
we
should.
I
feel
like
what
we
should
be
doing
is
we
should
move
forward
with
a
with
you
know,
an
actual
concrete
multi-vendor
registry
and
and
and
see
that
it
works,
and
then
we
can
continue
the
conversation
in
parallel
about
okay.
We
need
to
roll
this
out,
and
this
isn't
really
an
ask
because
I
mean
we're
gonna
run
out
of
money.
G
Yeah,
I
think
at
this
point
you
know:
let's
talk
about
the
details,
about
the
four
options
and
just
go
with
something:
let's
not
wait
on
the
cap
or
sig
release.
That's
gonna,
you
know
we
are
never
gonna
get
anywhere,
we
are
already
very
slow
and
we
need
to
fix
steam
up
so
hippie.
What
do
you
need?
You
have
four
options
which
one
do.
H
You
like,
and
what
are
the
four
also
full
disclosure
hippie.
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
sync
with
everyone
yet,
but
I
started
looking
into
this
a
bit
and
tim
has
requested
that,
like
my
team
focus
on
that
and
that
okay
he's
gotten
high.
C
H
Yeah,
I
I
think
maybe
we
need
to
have
that
somewhere
else,
but
I've
I've
gone
through
the
bits
I'm
prepared
for
that
conversation
I
was
looking
for
here
is
just
so.
Everyone
here
agrees
that,
like
we're
like
hippies,
not
blocked
we're
not
blocked,
we
should
we
don't
move
this,
don't
do
it
yeah.
I
think.
A
G
H
I
think
the
policy
will
fall
into
place
once
we
have
a
real
thing
and
that
the
you
know
having
the
policy
in
place
shouldn't
block
us
from
standing
up
something
and
saying
look.
This
is
available
and
we're
hemorrhaging
money
yeah.
Well,
we
I'm.
We
never
say
that
we
never
say
it's
blocking.
We
never
said
the
cap
is.
D
That's
okay!
This
is
all
the
same
thing.
Obviously
this
has
been
going
for
a
while.
The
question
of
funding
was
brought
up
a
few
times.
I
know
arno
has
an
item
further
down
the
list
about
funding
requests
with
what
ben
was
saying
about
the
scope
and
charter
of
the
sig.
D
We
need
to
figure
out
in
terms
of
like
aws
account
and
other
accounts
like
what
we
want
to
do
right,
because
hippie,
I'm
pretty
sure
hippie
is
now
like
the
owner
of
the
cncs
aws
account
yeah
so
like
like
these.
Are
the
people
to
talk
to
in
terms
of
funding
like
do
we
use
that
account?
Do
we
make
a
new
one
that
accounts
actually
an
organization,
and
do
we
add
sub
accounts
like
so
that
that's
this?
Is
the
group
to
figure
that
out
as
well.
G
Yeah
agree
eddie,
so
anything
that
can
help
us
track
the
costs,
and
you
know
make
sure
that
we
we
are
not
blowing
up.
The
budget
kind
of
thing
will
definitely
be
useful
and
if
it's
a
sub
account,
then
it's
a
sub
account
right.
Hp.
C
A
C
C
For
the
cncf
one,
if
that's
what
we
would
like
to
do,
I
know
that
personally,
it's
where
I
put
a
lot
of
my
efforts
into.
C
That's
a
propos,
that's
where
the
four
proposals
are.
I
meant
the
link
I
dropped
was
for
the
funding
request.
G
A
Basically,
we
that's
like
we
that's
steering
that
need
to
do
that,
because
kids,
if
I
can
have
access
to
that,
so
I
find
an
issue
to
basically
ask
steering
to
open
a
I
mean
I
don't
use
ticket
or
something
else.
So
I
think
we
need
to
go
through
the
process
and
too
and
that's
why
I
say
to
brand
like
not.
The
cap
is
not
blocking
notice
blocking.
We
just
need
to
basically
to
start
roll
out
the
things
and
basically
start
to
implement
something.
A
C
I'll
create
a
request
for
a
working
session
and
include
ben
and
anyone
else
that
he'd
like
to
invite
and
and
put
it
to
the
mailing
list.
A
C
G
C
I'll
create
that
and
put
it
forward
and
be
a
mailing
after
this
meeting.
B
G
Yeah,
I
I'll
get
you
the
permission
for
the
whatever
amount
you
ask
for
or
no
that
that
shouldn't
be
a
thing
and
the
hippie
can
actually
go
ahead
and
do
whatever
he
needs
to
do
on
the
cncf
side.
You
know
just
to
tell
the
people
that
need
to
be
told
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
sub
account
and
for
this
purpose
kind
of
thing.
So
when
we
use
the
sub
account,
then
it
becomes
an
issue.
If
you
create
a
subwoofer
nobody's
going
to
care,
that
would.
C
A
Great,
are
we
good
with
that
interesting
conversation.
C
G
A
Okay,
my
next
subject
will
be
system
packages,
and
so
I
put
the
link.
Basically,
this
is
an
issue
opened
by
james
three
years
so
ago.
So
I
don't
have
contacts
anymore
about
this.
A
lot
of
things
happen
between.
G
Yeah,
so
I
think
at
this
point
you
know
well,
the
issue
still
is
we
need.
You
know
the
google
admins
to
create
the
dev
and
rpm
hi
ben
and
we
have
a
new
person,
who's
gonna,
be
taking
over
duties
from
amit,
also
so
that
that's
the
update
there.
G
So
this
this
one
is
basically
like
at
that
point
in
time
I
was
pushing
for
you
know
having
a
shared
signed
key
and
then
using
that
to
sign
the
artifacts
instead
of
relying
on
you
know,
google
admins
to
be
able
to
do
that.
I
think
at
this
point
this
is
on
sig
releases
plate.
G
Let
them
do
what
they
want
to
do
and
let's
not
worry
about
it.
You
know
we
don't
forest
here.
It
is
about
providing
the
infrastructure
where
they
can
store
things,
and
you
know
they
can
choose.
However,
they
want
to
sign
it
and
upload
it,
and
at
this
point
I
think
they
are
moving
towards
trying
to
use
the
six
store
and
cosign
and
things
like
that
to
to
be
able
to
sign
artifacts.
G
I
don't
remember
seeing
a
cap
on
that
yet,
but
you
know
I
might
have
missed
something,
but
it's
it's
squarely
on
secret
lisa's
plate
what
artifacts
they'll
upload
to
the
infrastructure
that
we
give
them.
H
There's
some
additional
parts
to
this
issue,
but
they're
also
not
this
sick,
like
currently.
The
actual
packages
are
also
built
on,
like
my
workstation,
which
is
not
ideal
from
a
community's
perspective.
We
really
ideally
want
the
the
the
main
part
of
this
issue.
H
Originally,
if
you
look
through
the
checklist,
is
that,
like
these
things
should
be
part
of
our
release,
build
and
like
stored
on
community
infrared
whatnot,
even
before
we
get
to
the
point
of
the
final
publication
right
now,
all
of
that
happens
on
a
googler
workstation
and
then
it
gets
published,
but
moving
that
stuff
should
be
straightforward.
Standard,
sig
release
things,
and
we
probably
just
have
some
conversation
at
some
point
when
they're
ready
for
it
about
the
actual,
like
deb
and
rpm
package
host.
A
So
I
have
a
ques.
I
have
two
questions.
Is
google
plan
to
disclose
technical
detail
of
rapture
or
do
we
do.
H
H
G
Yes,
so
the
the
thing
there
is
like,
if
they
come
to
us
to
say,
hey,
we
want
to
store
a
key,
then
we
go
figure
out
how
to
store
the
key
kind
of
thing
and
we
already
have
some
solutions
for
that.
So
at
this
point,
let's
not
worry
about
this
at
all.
A
And
in
fact,
I
brought
that
conversation
with
raise
engineering
yesterday,
I'm
going
to
work
with
that
with
different
this
milestone.
So
my
second
question
is:
if
we
issue
a
new
signing
k
for
the
packages-
and
we
do
that
only
for
rpm,
because
I'm
supposed
to
debian
deprecate
package
signature
with
gpg.
G
Again,
they
can
mint
the
key.
They
will
tell
us
to
store
the
key
somewhere
right
like
so.
Let's
not
worry
about
the
c
creation.
Also
it's
up
to
them
and
we
we
don't
know
what
our
what
all
requirements
will
come
from
the
six
store
or
cosign
point
of
view.
They
might
be
dealing
with
some
certificates
and
things
like
okay,
so
right
so
it
when
they
come
to
us
saying
here
is
an
artifact.
We
need
to
store
it
somewhere.
Then
we
go
figure
out.
G
A
G
Downstream
right
now
doesn't
have
access
to
google's
key,
so
downstreams
have
learned
to
work
with
you
know
whatever
the
community
is
putting
out
already.
So
there
is
no
change
in
downstream.
You
know.
H
I
mean
they'll
have
to
they'll
have
to
switch
over
to
the
new
location
of
the
new
key,
but
that's
not,
I
think,
a
super
unusual
event.
In
fact,
I
know
you
shared
with
me
a
link
about
docker
published
when
they
did
this.
H
Have
to
happen
that's
this
is
not
really
a
concern
of
it,
but
since
I'm
here
that
will
have
to
happen,
because
I
mean
I
don't
even
have
the
key:
that's
not
how
that
works.
I
can't
give
you
a
key.
I
can't
add
a
key
right.
I
have
no
control
over
the
keys.
The
only
thing
I
can
do
is
request
a
package
be
signed
on
my
behalf
with
special
authorization
and
things.
There's
no
they'll
just
have
to
make
a
key
and
host
it
and
the
downstream
impact
will
be.
H
Users
will
need
to
switch,
but
we
can
have
maybe
a
release
where
we
publish
both
or
something
at
the
moment,
especially
since
we
are
getting
back
to
three
people
running
this
for
now.
Okay,
it
is
very
back
burner
thing,
so
it's
not
important
to
this
thing,
but
you
know
I'll.
I
need
to
have
that
conversation
that
you
know
this
does
need
to
happen
and
when
it
does,
we
can
figure
out
providing
hosting
for
it.
A
H
G
Yeah
again
going
back
to
what
I
was
saying
before,
the
release
managing
team
need
to
figure
out
how
cosine
works
and
what
are
the
inputs
needed
and
which
ones
need
to
be
secure
and
tell
us
what
needs
to
be
secured,
and
then
we
can
come.
They
can
raise
an
issue
with
us
and
we
can
then
figure
out
how
to
provide
the
infrastructure.
For
that,
and
we
can
look
in
both
you
know.
A
H
Just
to
clarify
the
google
infra
being
moved,
it's
literally
just
a
package
host
and
then
in
the
scripts
that
build
and
publish
a
package.
They
call
into
something
to
get
a
package
signed
and
to
get
it
uploaded.
So
we
just
need
to
replace
those
calls
with
some
standard.
Signings
thing
like
cosign
and
with
whatever
upload
mechanism
is
used
by
whatever
host
we
select.
A
G
I'm
happy
to
leave
it
at
124.
as
long
as
it
is
not
on
our
plate
and
looking
at
the
labels.
It
is
not
on
our
plate,
it
is
with
release
engineering
and
security.
A
G
A
A
H
G
And
arno,
since
you
are
talking
in
sigrilis
about
these
things,
you
can
also
ask
them
about
how
do
we
sign
cube
ctl,
you
know
so
that
it
does
the
cube
cto
on
windows
and
mac,
how
to
sign
that
as
well.
G
So
downstream,
I
know
we
do
that,
so
we,
while
we
are
doing
this,
we
might
as
well
research
about
how
to
sign
you
know
using
whatever
things
is
required
by
mac,
os
and
windows.
Okay,.
F
A
You
can
skip
because
we
are,
we
have
10
minutes
left,
so
you
can
speak
this
one.
So,
basically
the
job
migration
is
just.
We
need
to
hold
everything
related
to
migration
of
the
pro
job,
because
we
need
to
fix
that.
The.
A
And
the
last
thing
for
me
is
the
migration
to
a
domain
on
google
group.
I
plan
to
do
that
by
end
of
the
week,
so
we
we
we
are
moving
for
google
groups
to
something
like
cksf
at
kubernetes.io.
It's
kind
of
easy
to
do
from
me.
I
think
I
have
an
open
issue.
I
will
open
pull
requests
for
this,
so
I
plan
to
do
the
migration
and
send
a
communication
about
this.
So
this
is
more
like
heads
up
and
not.
G
Yeah,
this
is
just
so,
it
doesn't
involve
the
community
or
anything
like
that.
So
yeah
we
can.
We
can
deal
with
it.
Okay,.
D
Sorry,
real
quick
go
back
to
the
package
thing
real,
real,
fast,
the
devs
and
rpms.
Do
we
have
a
formal
policy
around
that
at
all.
A
D
D
Art,
okay,
so
the
reason
I'm
bringing
this
up
is
we
get
asked
for
cube
control
to
be
available
in
every
single
package
manager
possible
that
you
can
imagine
and
some
you've
never
heard
of,
and
our
stance
has
always
been
like.
The
kubernetes
project
just
provides
binaries
and
we
rely
on
the
community
to
handle
distribution
to
their
favorite
package
managers.
D
I
have
that
memorized,
if
you
don't
remember
so,
if,
if
we
want
to
change
anything
in
terms
of
like
packaging,
if
you
want
to
say
like
we're
going
to
support
a
dem
and
a
an
rpm
repo,
that's
cool
and
all
just
keep
that
in
mind
too.
It's
like
the
community
as
soon
as
we
start
like
beyond
doing
an
official
deb
thing,
the
community
is
going
to
want
us
to
publish
packages
everywhere
right.
G
So
I
don't
think
sigrillis
wants
to
do
anything
more
than
deb
and
rpm.
It's
whatever
we
have
today
with
a
new
signing
key
that
is,
are
equivalent
using
whatever
cosine
and
salsa
or
and
other
things
that
they
are
looking
at
cool.
H
Though,
to
be
fair,
the
existing
thing
is
sort
of
just
someone:
did
it
very
early
in
the
project
and
just
used
google
stuff,
and
I
don't
think
there
was
a
super
conscious
like
there.
Certainly
wasn't
a
cap
or
anything
like
that.
Yeah
we
didn't
have
camp
in
those
days,
so
it
may
be
worth
revisiting
if
this
is
even
something
the
project
needs
to
be
doing.
G
Yeah
at
this
point,
I'm
not
going
to
question.
I
would
because
that
leads
to
a
whole,
larger
conversation
and
more
chaos,
and
it's
better
to
just
say
hey.
This
is
the
new
devon
rpm.
Here
is
where
you
can
get
the
key
to
verify
that
those
are
good
or
you
know,
or
equal
command
line
things
to
verify
the
debs
and
rpms.
Are
you
know
up
to
par.
C
G
G
G
I
think
we
definitely
made
good
progress
today,
thanks
arnold.
A
Going
okay,
I
don't
know,
I
want
to
finish
my
last
question
with
ben
and
answer
the
question
to
ap
in
the
chat
so
which
one
is
better
for
you.
James.
A
A
H
Would
be
nice
to
check
the
the
storage
and
see
what's
in
there
in
the
past,
we
kind
of
let
whatever
subprojects
that
want
to
use
it.
You
know
this
wasn't
on
kate
sand
for
billing.
We
should
you
know
kubernetes
itself,
shouldn't
need
this
anymore,
but
there
have
been
other
projects
using
one.
So
the
other
possibility
is
that
we
down
downsize
it
or
or
we
need
to
tell
those
projects
that,
like
they're,
going
to
lose
caching,
their
builds,
I'm
not
sure
who's
using
it.
Today,.
A
H
It
uses
whichever
one
is
in
the
they're
local
to
the
build
cluster,
so
wherever
the
ci
is
actually
running,
that's
which
one
it's
gonna
use
so
like.
If
someone
had
stuff
running
on
kate's
in
for
cluster
and
were
trying
to
use
the
build
cache,
then
they
would
wind
up
using
that
one
both
of
them
probably
should
get
shut
down.
H
But
I
know
in
the
past
that
at
the
very
least
chaops
was
using
this-
I
don't
know
if
they
are
today-
and
I
I
mean
don't
know
who
else
I
used
to
have
monitoring
for
this,
but
that
was
on
velodrome,
which
got
shut
down
and.
H
Yeah
so
well
I
mean
I
had
like
monitoring
on
the
application
itself.
I
don't
have
that
now.
If
we
can
get
like
the
logs
or
look
at
the
storage
or
something
we
can
figure
out,
if
anybody's,
storing
anything
in
there
and
go
talk
to
them.
H
So
like
we're
also
at
this
point
removing
it
from
test
infrared,
but
I
can't
say
that
that
doesn't
mean
any
other
sub
projects.
Don't
have
it
last
I
checked
chaops
had
it
I'm
not
sure,
not
sure
about
the
rest.
We
have
a
lot
of
repos
and
since
it's
just
an
open,
http
endpoint
within
the
cluster,
it
would
be
trivial
for
other
projects
to
be
using
it
and
I'm
pretty
certain
they
were
so
at
the
very
least.
H
We
should
check
with
them
and
we
should
check
it
should
be
pretty
straightforward
if
we
go
like
take
a
poke
at
the
running
app
to
see
like
who
who
is
actually
accessing
it.
A
H
Yeah
I'll
also,
we
can
follow
fine.
I
think
we
should
be
good.
I
have
a
thing
that
says
like
shut,
that
I
have
an
issue
and
testing
for
this
says:
shut
down
or
downsize
it
okay,
but
I
just
didn't
haven't
had
time.
A
Okay,
good,
we
have,
I.
H
Yeah,
well,
we
can.
We
follow
up
with
that.
I
Friday,
somebody
else
actually
chimed
in
and
said
they
might
be
able
to
help
me
out
on
that
thread
from
the
other
day,
because.
A
I
felt
like
well
I'm
not
in
rush
about
this.
Just
to
be
sure
you
don't
need
something
from
me
or
in
lgtm,
and
approval
or
comment
about
the
pull
requests.
I
I
will
hopefully
get
to
it.