Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog, 11 Jun 2018

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog 2018-06-11

Description

volunteers to read the desync issue and comment
security contact is triager and volunteers
OWNERS updates

will revisit next week with more attendees

A

Oh everybody welcome to the June 18th 2018 in service catalog meeting. We were waiting for Carolyn to begin to discuss some of the issues. So I took the offline off video time to discuss my issue: I'm driving with the peace synchronization of state between cube and the open service broker, API platform / broker.

A

You got some willing participants to go and look at the document and make comments and.

A

We will try to meet later if any of the people on the call who are going to look at the document could either respond to the email or you know, respond on slacks. um How about setting up a meeting time I would appreciate it.

B

Morgan is this the same issue that we're trying to get scheduled last week and with yes, yeah? Okay, all right.

A

No I understand that you guys are out. That's fine. I. Just didn't didn't fully understand that as far as people being out I'm going to be out probably next week on traveling jonathan is out this week for conference as well, and jog is out probably this weekend next week for the same set of conferences, but he's Doug, so he'll probably be on anyway.

A

So just that administrivia update there.

A

As far as the security contact issue, we discussed I'm, not sure we all fully understand the details of what is required of the contact, but if it is mainly a triage communication, Rapid Response type maintainer versus having to be a deep understanding of the various security issues.

A

You might have multiple volunteers, but I will shout out that I can be a contact last issue, PR auto-assignment. So what this is talking about is in.

A

In Service, Catalog I enabled the prowl a signer reviewer task thing and what that does is on a PR creation. Now you get the robot requesting reviews from people, and it does this through some fairly complicated algorithm, but as we can see, I'm not sure Brendon has looked at this repository and the last six months and Kent's been around, but he hasn't said anything yet, and so that's the kind of assignments we're seeing and so part of what I think we need to do to resolve. This is a.

A

Ad, not that, where is it owner, add more people to this file? Add more people to this file be set up more of them within the entire source tree such that? If you are a further.

A

If you feel that you have an area of expertise in one particular code segment or another, that you create a donor's file in that particular segment and then put yourself in it and then three would be, we start adding reviewers, which would be I, guess the people who are not yet mirja, Bowl people and but do participate that way. We can at least in the future, move to a more proud based system.

A

So maybe maybe what we can maybe action items we can take to at least try to solve. This would be.

A

Create some owners files in in areas that you feel you own more more constructively I can show you the tests infra part of this. If that would help.

C

Comments I think.

D

It's a good idea, I think maybe doing a pass to remove anybody. That's not actually maintaining it anymore would be good too. So you clean up some of those bad assignments. Yep.

C

C

B

We have a subdirectory or a project level and you create noise file in there. It would basically override everything at the parent level rate I. Think.

A

It it it doesn't override it, but it adds a higher level preference to picking one of those people- okay, great and and if none of those Pete like in theory, the route one somebody from the route, one should be applicable to any of the files I'm, not sure. If it's a hard I didn't like this is the code you can come, read the code or yourself and see exactly how it picks the thing. Maybe maybe it is a complete override.

A

My understanding from the textural version of this was that it it's sort of a higher preference, so I think Ju. You did the health checker thing and not there's been a lot of traffic in there, but me right, but none owner of that yeah yeah.

B

A

A

And I believe the preference is as well for reviewers / approvers just because what that is looking for specifically is reviewers. So but again, if I think, if approver is available it will you know, that's the choice.

A

Okay, is that approximately the discussion I.

D

A

B

Have a feeling we would have to revisit, and maybe it's a good idea anyway to summarize, where we, what we covered this week next week, because we just don't have any people here.

A

Right and Rohde, what do you.

B

Mean right now or no.

A

No, no sorry, next week, next.

B

Week we just revisit these, especially this list last item when we're looking for people to you know review what they want for listed for.

A

A

Okay, so is that, does that cover the content of the meeting? Everybody feel any other actions, any other business.

B

Let's good to me, Morgan okey-dokey.

A

I will stop the recording and we can all go about. Our days sounds good. Let's have.

D

A good one, everybody I.