►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog 2018-07-30
Description
send some emails out for lazy consensus
namespaced service-brokers
svcat cli behavior preferences
milestone 0.2 review
pr review
A
Hello,
welcome
to
the
Cooper
at-6
service,
catalog
July,
30th
Monday
2018
meetings
fill
in
yourself.
Your
attending
you've
got
what
looks
like
a
pretty
full
schedule,
but
not
a
lot
of
people
here
so
I'll
begin
and
well
tackle
what
we
can
tackle.
Delegate
everything
to
the
mailing
list
for
the
slack
I
guess
so
it's
been
a
week
or
two
I'm
getting
started
right
into
it.
I'm
the
first
thing
so
getting
into
it.
We've
got:
we've
had
the
LG
TM
process
from
prowl
and
Abel
for
a
while
and
I
was
thinking.
A
We
could
begin
to
taper
off
of
the
old
process
and
flow
into
the
new
process.
We
covered
some
of
this
last
week.
So
if
you
want
to
more
details,
you
can
watch
last
meeting
or
look
at
the
notes,
but
I
feel
like
we've
gotten
a
bigger
handle
on
it
and
I've
seen
people
consistently
using
the
labels,
even
if
they
don't
necessarily
understand
what
they
mean.
I
guess
is
the
potential
thing
so
I
was
going
to
say
you
could
vote
on
it
here.
B
A
A
We've
had
we've
had
everything
pared
down
to
you
know
the
I
guess
couple
of
five
different
ones.
Here
they
were
named
sequentially
and
somebody
took
out
the
non
non-existent
ones
anymore.
So
right
now
the
only
ones
left
are
the
ones
that
people
sort
of
vouched
for
as
something
they
would
support,
and
so
we're
left
with
zero
one.
Two
five
and
eight
I
really
don't
know
what
the
process
for
this
is.
We
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
people
in
here,
I
guess
we
can
go
to
the
mailing
list
for
this
as
well.
A
B
Think
the
intention
was
secret
ballot,
but
I
think
we've
talked
about
giving
people
till
Friday,
which
seems
like
a
long
time,
but
whatever
that's
that's
the
date
that
I
think
Carolyn
has
previously
recorded
in
the
meeting
Morgan.
My
thought
is
why
don't
we
put
both
of
these
lazy
consensus
votes
into
one?
You
know
mail,
saying:
hey
it's
open
now,
please
make
a
choice
on
you
know
the
two
issues
enumerate
the
two
issues
and
say:
yeah
we'd,
like
results
for
the
we
go
for
the
end
of
day
on
Friday.
B
C
So
first
step
is
namespaced
brokers.
I
really
haven't
been
paying
attention
to
this
I'm,
just
kind
of
wanted
to
touch
base
to
see
where
we
are
in
that
I
checked
out
master
and
was
playing
with
it,
and
it
seems
like
it's
functional
at
this
point,
but
it's
still
gated
behind
an
alpha
feature.
Flag
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
what
to
do
what
that
was.
B
C
D
C
The
reason
I'm
primarily
interested
is
because
I
wanted
to
be
turned
on
by
default,
because
I
have
been
adding
flags
to
svk
register
Indy
register
and
Carolyn
and
I
were
discussing
it,
and
I
can
open
this
up
for
discussion
here.
If
people
have
opinions
which
do
you
think
would
make
more
sense
as
the
default
I'm
just
saying,
SD
can't
register
broker.
Do
you
think
it
would
make
more
sense
for
the
default,
the
name
space
burger
comes
into
existence
or
cluster
service,
and
we
were
thinking.
C
Namespace
brokers
was
probably
the
better
base
case,
because
that's
like
a
thing
I
normally
usually
would
probably
do
some
time
as
opposed
to
an
admin.
Only
cluster
wide
operation
happens
fairly
infrequently,
but
we
didn't
want
that
to
be
the
default.
If
it's
gating
behind
an
alpha
feature
flag
because
then
in
the
default
behavior
would
be
blow
up.
D
C
C
Is
this
work?
We
see
that
yo
can
okay,
so
so
the
PR
dad
register
already
went
in
I've
added
a
whole
bunch
of
flags,
and
this
is
also
I
mean
I
was
just
working
off
of
the
flags.
Carolyn
and
I
came
up
with
the
issue
of
people.
Have
other
ideas
feel
free
to
chime
in
so
just
let's,
he
said
a
bunch
of
the
spec
stuff
for
brokers.
I
have
mini
cube
running
on
my
broker
right
here.
C
C
So
yeah
my
sequels
gone
so
yeah
Kalin's
been
reviewing
my
poor
quest.
This
is
still
open,
see
really.
This
is
just
a
button.
Somebody
else
to
come
to
do
it.
It's
kind
of
a
large
bull
request,
I
understand
that
I
wanted
to
add
all
the
fighters
in
one
go
if
you're
finding
it
difficult
to
understand
it,
especially
because
the
attests
area
can
be
enco,
feel
free
to
thinking
over
slack
and
I
can
walk
you
through
it,
but
I'd
like
to
get
the
same
yeah.
E
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
B
A
Okay,
moving
on
you
know,
as
part
of
this
namespace
service
broker
is
basically
one
of
the
things
that
we're
saying
is
our
0.2
and
sounds
like
very
close
on
that
particular
aspect
of
it
I'm
concerned
by
how
do
we
get
everything
else
off
of
here
and
there's
a
lot
of
these,
that
I've,
reviewed
and
I
believe
I've
brought
them
up
I'm,
not
really
sure
how
to
get
them
resolved.
So.
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
I'm
gonna
leave
this
one
open
just
because
we
can
either
move
this
to
1.0
when
we
get
to
feeling
done,
but
I
think
this
one
holds
value
just
in
terms
of
you
know,
documentation
that
we
could
require.
It's
got
a
big
list
of
stuff.
Yeah,
there's
been
lots
of
links
to
it,
so
I
think
it's
just
it's
just
good
as
an
overall
issue
done
good.
Yes,.
A
A
A
A
If,
if
Doug
still
uses
it,
if
somebody
else
still
uses
it
I'm,
finally
just
leaving
it
and
then
we
can
close
this
issue
because
people
using
it
I
agree
that
the
you
know
the
weird
client
expansion
thing
throws
a
wrench
in
it,
but
I
really
can't
control
how
that
works.
So
thoughts
leave
alone,
close
that
yes,.
A
B
A
A
A
B
Paul,
let's
discuss
some
details
around
this
I
know
it's
using
utilizing
current
quota
mechanism
within
kubernetes,
so
you
could
limit.
You
know
like
how
many
instances
can
be
created
in
the
namespace
or
perhaps
by
a
user.
So
I
I
know
there's
some
work
around
this,
but
it
sounds
like
we
need
a
definition.
First
on
it,
some
concrete
ideas:
okay,
I,
don't
know
that
it
should
be
in
zero
to
zero.
I.
Don't
have
a
feeling
on
that
I
can
I
can
take
it
up
with
Paul,
okay,
I'm,
just
gonna
put
this.
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
E
A
I
guess
this
is
more
paw,
pods,
preset
stuff,
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
take
pod
preset
out
of
0.2
or
if
we
you
know,
move
it
to
1.0,
because
I
don't
really
overall
I'm,
not
really
sure
what
but
I
think
it's
a
1.0
kind
of
requirement,
but
I
don't
think
I'd
like
to
get
a
point
to
out
sooner.
Rather
than
later,
you
leave.
A
A
B
A
A
A
D
B
B
A
A
B
This
was
one
of
our
our
testers
I.
Think
that
opened
this
issue.
We
had
an
issue
with
migration
and
Paul
at
open
issue
in
our
product
and
indicated
that
it,
in
addition
to
not
doing
validation
during
the
stories
of
migration,
I
think
he
was
also
saying
there
should
be
a
default
on
default
created
for
was
it
a
plan,
not
plan
no
I
I
need
I,
guess
I
all
seem
to
be
pretty
convinced
about
what
he
wanted
to
see
happen.
B
A
default
created
the
test
didn't
do
that
and
I
think
I
think
what
overall,
what
happen
wants
to
be
happened
here?
Is
a
issue
probably
created
and
we
can
track
it
from
there.
I
don't
know
that
it's
a
high
priority
I,
don't
believe
it
is
okay.
I
can
circle
back
again
with
Paul
on
this
one
and
see
for
certain,
but
I
believe
will
right
close
this
issue
and
create
a
what
close
this
be.
Are
you
create
an
issue?
Okay,
okay,.