►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Release Meeting for 20230502
Description
Kubernetes SIG Release Meeting for 20230502
A
Hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
May
2nd
wild
that
it
is
may
already
I.
Don't
I,
don't
understand
where
the
time's
gone,
but
it
is
indeed
May
2nd.
This
is
the
May
2nd
Sig
release
meeting.
My
name
is
Jeremy
and
I'll
be
the
host
today
before
we
get
started,
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone.
This
meeting
is
covered
by
the
cncf
code
of
conduct,
which
essentially
means
please
be
excellent
to
one
another.
We
are
recording
right
now
and
it
will
be
available
on
YouTube.
A
B
C
D
A
E
G
E
F
E
A
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
don't
think
that
we
have
many
updates,
since
the
things
are
a
little
bit
slower
since
cubecon
with
everyone
catching
up
with
all
the
things,
but
one
thing
to
announce
is
go
134
and
194
updates.
Those
are
the
pre
announcement
that
last
week
releases
are
supposed
to
go
out
today.
There
are
a
couple
CVS
that
are
going
to
be
fixed,
so
we
are
going
to
work
on
updating
to
the
latest
scope
actually
as
soon
as
they
are
available
and
they're
definitely
going
to
be
included.
B
E
E
A
E
A
A
F
G
Today
is
the
last
day
where
you
can
apply
for
the
release
team,
so
we
close
the
shadow
application
form
in
five
hours
six
hours-
something
like
this.
So
a
few
new
folks
are
in
this
meeting.
If
you
like,
you
can
still
apply
and
we
will
collect
or
basically
brainstorm
with
the
team.
The
team
has
like
a
selection
time
for
for
a
week,
so
until
next
week
we
should
have
the
team
set
up
and
then
we
can
start
the
release
cycle.
G
A
A
B
So
when
branch
managers
run
a
command
to
generate
jobs
and
to
try
to
get
rid
of
all
jobs,
they
didn't
work
really
well
because
yeah,
there
are
some
assumption.
Based
to
that
that
they're
not
going
to
work
correctly.
The
way
it
should
work
like
when
we
cut
dot,
zero
and
ready
to
remove
all
jobs.
We
like
push
the
latest
release
to
stable
one
and
then
like
the
rotation
and
then
remove
the
latest
releases.
B
So
there
was
some
problems
around
that
and
folks
were
trying
to
solve
that.
We,
it
was
like
a
joint
effort
to
try
to
make
it
work.
So
thanks.
Everyone
involved
with
this.
We
managed
to
get
rid
of
d123
jobs,
so
I
think
that
should
be
fine
now,
but
I
created
some
issues
that
I
need
that
need
feedback.
B
One
of
them,
like
should
be
it
is
this
is
about
updating
annotations,
something
that
I
was
handling
when
doing
stable
for,
but
that
I
forgot
some
of
them.
Obviously-
and
another
issue
is
about
a
basic
head
book
which
is
like
the
handbook
should
recap
all
the
things
that
we
did
and
then
138
released
in
is
supposed
to
do
because
they're
going
to
be
some
changes
like
you
will
not
be
able
to
run
the
make
Command
like
it
was
done
before,
because
some
change
so
there's
some
adjustment
needed.
And
finally,
what
is
like.
B
B
So
please
take
a
look
at
the
tissue
and
if
you
have
any
feedback
about
that,
let
me
know
I
think
there's
also
someone
a
slide
called
volunteer
to
take
care
of
that
like
to
help
with
rewriting
the
tooling
so
yeah.
If
you
agree
on
that,
I
think
we
can
proceed
then,
hopefully
it's
going
to
improve
the
situation
a
bit.
A
A
E
A
A
All
right
any
questions
for
Marco
about
the
sorry
I've
had
like
a
cold
for
like
a
week
and
its
cough
will
not
go
away
any
questions
for
Marco
about
updating
the
release,
French
jobs
or
any
of
the
follow-up
work
marker.
You
said
that
there
was
somebody
interested
in
doing
some
of
that
work
today.
Do
you
know
if
they
are
on
this
call.
A
B
I
think
this
is
still
not
decided.
I
don't
know.
If
all
it's
like
have
opinions,
it
can
be
another
binary
in
K
testing
for
because
all
jobs
are
there,
so
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
put
everything
a
test
differ
as
it
is
right
now,
but
if
there
are
opinions
like
that,
we
should
have
it
in
creel.
I,
think
that
is
fine
as
well.
A
C
So
this
is
a
pretty
trivial
change
that
all
things
considered.
It's
just
a
documentation
update,
but
I
have
I've
been
in
Shadow
and
a
lead
for
a
few
kubernetes
releases
now,
and
one
thing
that
I
struggle
with
is
just
finding
the
right
documentation,
especially
for
shadows
in
particular,
I.
Think
if
you've
been
part
of
the
release
process,
you've
probably
encountered
this
before
yourself,
where
a
lot
of
Shadows
either
don't
know
what
they're
doing
or
don't
know
what
they're
really
getting
into
with
the
release,
and
so
I
want
to
figure
out.
C
C
Either
way
I'll
post
the
the
link
in
the
chat,
but
essentially,
if
you
look
at
any
of
the
handbooks
today,
there
you
go,
you
should
be
able
to
sure
no
cool.
Thank
you.
If
you
look
at
any
of
the
handbooks
today,
they're
literally
all
called
the
blank
leads
handbook,
and
so,
if
you
are
a
prospective
Shadow
or
a
current
Shadow,
you
may
very
well
just
think
that
this
document
is
not
right
for
you.
C
Obviously,
if
you
scroll
down
a
little
bit,
you'll
see
prerequisites
for
shadow
is
here
and
there
are
situations
in
which
we
want
to
have
the
docs
Consolidated.
You
know,
for
example,
if
you
wanted
to
have
your
shadows
really
understand
what
the
lead
role
is,
which
is
the
point
of
the
shadowing
program,
then
it
makes
sense
for
them
to
be
Consolidated
into
the
same
documentation
for
them
to
follow,
but
with
that
being
said,
I
think
it
might
be
prudent
for
us
to
just
do
something
as
simple
as
just
re-titling.
C
A
C
E
G
I,
like
it
I
think
this
is
a
this
is
a
great
change
and
just
by
retitling
the
title
I
think
this
is
already
I
mean.
This
is
the
first
thing
which
you,
which
you
see.
So
if
you
are
interested
in
joining
the
team-
and
you
see
this
is
the
lead
handbook.
I
I
can
see
that
some
folks
are
maybe
a
little
bit
confused
and
maybe
are
looking
for
a
different
document
and
also
making
it
clear
for
new
folks
joining
the
team.
G
So,
if
there's
like
some
small
additional
work,
what
the
lead
lead
is
doing,
the
shadow
should
be
aware
of
it,
so
splitting
it
into
two
files,
maybe
in
some
cases,
makes
sense,
but
in
general
I
would
I
would
keep
it
together
or
make
sure
at
least
that
the
shadow
is
aware
somehow,
but
I
think
your
proposal
is
like
a
great
way.
Yeah
I,
like
it.
F
To
everything
that
Leo
said
additionally,
there
is
the
part
where,
when
we're
leaders
we're
a
good
technical
ability,
but
we
have
discussed
a
few
times
in
other
meetings
that
when
we're
leading
in
this
context,
it
is
very
important
to
to
show
our
shadows
so
collaborators
how
to
do
things,
because
in
the
past,
I'm
glad
that
this
is
not
an
issue
anymore.
But
in
the
past
the
Shadows
would
complain
about
not
having
the
right
tools
to
to
know
how
to
proceed,
because
leaders
were
just
expecting
them
to
grab
s.
F
So
a
good
middle
ground
was
like
to
consolidate
the
with
the
handbooks
and,
as
Leo
said
so
yeah,
yes
to
changing
the
title,
but
also
a
reminder
that
that
anyone
here,
including
myself,
the
word
because
to
to
be
very
clear
about
what
we
expect
from
them
and
and
show
them
where
things
are
and
what's
up,
we
are
expecting
to
to
complete
from
that
kind
of
book.
That's
addressed
that
there
is
no
room
for
like
confusion.
A
H
C
H
Definitely
if
you
had
a
document
dedicated
to
shadowing
that
would
be
great,
especially
if
it
it
said
you
know.
These
are
examples
of
what
Shadows
have
done
in
the
past.
Like
here
are
maybe
specific
issues
here
are
some
things
that
they
have
worked.
Here's
an
idea
of
what
maybe
would
be
your
responsibilities
in
the
next
thing.
This
is
when
you
have
to
volunteer
by,
like
all
of
those
things
have
been.
F
It's
good,
the
only
thing
I
would
say
about
that
is
that
the
responsibilities
usually
depend
on
the
shop
team
and
on
who's
leading
in,
but
also
depending
on
the
sub
team.
We
have
had
people
who
are
more
experienced,
and
hopefully
speaking
than
people
who
are
newer
so
depending
on
that
comfortable
bringing
different
responsibilities
so,
but
this
is
definitely
useful
feedback.
You
know
something
that
I
I
think
right
now
is
as
an
idea
it
could
be
like
since
leads
are
chosen,
usually
before
or
but
by
the
end
of
the
previous
cycle.
F
They
could
write
up
something
like
minimum
expectations
or
time
commitment.
Something
like
that.
It's
just
a
quick
idea
that
we
can
obviously
formalize
and
discuss
so
that
when
the
shadow
application
forms
are
out
too
late
now
boyfriend,
because
people
applying
can
have
like
a
little
based
stuff
experiences.
I
I
There's
such
an
invaluable
perspective
from
being
that
newcomer
entering
into
I
guess
the
contribute
contributor
world
so,
like
you
know,
Matt,
as
you
were
talking
I
was,
like
you
know,
there's
some
Shadow
docs
in
like
at
least
for
chick
ducks
at
the
very
least
in
that
leads
deck
that
we
were
talking
about
and
I
realized
the
wrong
reaction
to
have.
It's
like
you
have
such
a
fresh
perspective
if
you're
not
seeing
this
stuff
and
if
it's
not
surfaced
up
whether
it
exists
or
not.
I
There's
an
issue
there
with
information,
Discovery
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
call
it
kind
of
the
meta
task
or
meta
role
of
folks
who
are
new
to
contributing.
When
you
see
stuff
like
this,
it
doesn't
make
sense
or
the
information
isn't
there.
One
bite-sized
contribution
is
fixing
the
documentation
or
clarifying
the
documentation
of
you
know.
How
do
you
make
it
better
for
you?
You
know
it's
a
really
small
bite-sized
test.
You
can
clarify
a
sentence.
You
can
clarify
a
document,
you
know
so
I
just
want
to
validate
Matt
from
your
opinion
there.