►
From YouTube: WG Component Standard 20190924
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
Okay,
welcome
everyone
to
the
tuesday
september
24th
2019
working
group
appointment
standard
meeting,
doing
a
smaller
group
today,
we'll
jump
right
in
to
alex's
topic.
B
Yep,
that
was
the
one
I
just
mentioned
towards
the
end.
Last
time
me,
I
was
talking
with
lee
and
he
suggested
you
know.
I
could
submit
some
patches
to
to
components
enabling
these
strict
serializers.
B
Tests
are
already
passing,
I
think,
they're
like
in
review
phase.
So
basically
the
idea
is
to
just
get
in
dprs
and
then
wait
for
people
to
review
it.
It
will
always
take
a
while
and
then
I
can
work
on
the
whole
yaml
multi-dog
stereotype
thing.
Basically,
I
only
have
one
question
really
in
this
regard.
If,
if
you
don't
have
anything
else,
I
can
imagine
that
it
would
be.
You
know
some
more
drastic
user
facing
change.
I
mean
if
that
gets
merged,
and
you
know
people
have
a
conflict
with.
B
I
don't
know
some
some
wrong
field
starting
the
component
would
fail
right
yeah.
So
I
can
imagine
there
will
be
some
people
say.
No,
no,
you
know.
Maybe
we
don't
merge
this.
This
is
too
drastic.
Is
there
any?
You
know
previous
discussion
where
this
has
come
up,
that
we
really
want
this
or
that
we
can
now
point
to
and
say:
hey
we've
discussed
this
before.
Oh.
A
I
don't
know
if
there's
been
a
previous
discussion
about
that,
like
you
know
in
general,
like
somebody
will
probably
bring
it
up
and
we
just
have
to
argue
with
them
a
little
bit.
I
think
a
lot
of
there
have
been
previous
discussions
where
someone
said
well
like
somebody
could
be
using
it
by
accident,
but
ultimately
like
if
they're,
what
they're
doing
is
the
wrong
thing
like
it's
creating
future
risk
right,
like
maybe
their.
C
B
A
Server
might
be
newer
than
your
client,
but
in
the
case
of
just
reading
an
application
config
in
you
are
your
own
api
server.
So
there's
no
versions
here
like
it's
like
when
you
push
a
new
api
server,
you
know
it's,
it's
the
canonical
definition.
B
So
I
mean:
are
there
any
plans
to
version
these
kind
of
configuration
files?
Could
this
come
up
in
the
future.
C
I
would
suspect
that
people
would
be
a
little
bit
angry
about
this,
especially
if
we
actually
tried
to
retrofit
it
old
versions
of
configs,
but
given
the
fact
that
most
of
the
component,
config
versions
are
actually
alpha
right
now,
with
the
exception
of
the
of
the
cubelet,
we
can
basically
retrofit
it.
C
Yeah
but
basically
we
changed
the
way
this
struct
is
parsed
and
like
basically
serialized,
so
it
may
lead
to
some
changes,
but
I
think
it's
okay.
C
A
B
Not
for
now,
I
think
the
q
proxy
one
hasn't
gotten
any
review
yet
other
than
me.
Scheduler
already
has
some
people
assigned
to
it
I'll
try
to
get
the
other
two
through
this
week
and
I'll
just
see
how
it
goes.
I
mean
if
like
in
a
week
or
so,
there's
no
action
on
it.
I'll
probably
come
back
to
it
and
mention
it,
and
then
we
can
not
figure
out
who
can
approach
for
that?
Okay.
A
Yeah,
let
me
know
if
you
need
any
help
on
cubelet,
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
worked
on
the
config
loading
in
there,
but
I
think
there
are
a
few
different
places.
It
loads
that
you
might
have
to
modify
and
then
also
when,
if
you're
doing
dynamic,
config
you'll
want
to
make
sure
that,
like
the
error
from
the
strix
0,
fails
to
decode
propagates
up
like
to
the
config
status
correctly.
A
Awesome
cool
so
much
that
was
the
let's
see
that
was
the
main
thing
on
our
agenda.
I
am
going
to
send
out
an
email
later
today
to
the
broader
community,
just
trying
to
request
more
contributors
come
to
our
working
group,
so
lee
and
I
kind
of
workshop
that
over
the
weekend
and
then
we
will
have
a
presentation
just
a
brief
presentation
about
the
working
group
at
the
community
meeting
on
thursday.
B
Oh
cool
I
wanted
to
ask:
is
anyone
coming
from
the
working
group
or
planning
to
come
to
next
year's
cube
from
europe?
I
know
it's
still
a
bit.
Oh.
A
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
it
would
be
good
for
I
think
one
of
us
to
go
like
it's.
It
would
be
good
to
have
like
a
talk
or
something
that
we
could
put
together
and
then
submit
for
keep
on
europe,
and
then
that
would
give
us
a
great
excuse
to
get
our
companies
to
expense.
The
trouble.
C
Most
likely
be
there
next
year.
I
have
also
a
couple
of
tiny
updates.
The
first
one
is
I'll,
probably
start
working
like
either
this
or
next
week
on
a
component,
config
validator
command
line
interface
like
a
standard
interface
to
be
implemented
throughout
all
components,
and
the
other
one
is
I'll.
Try
to
like
show
you
some
draft
around
the
v1
alpha
2
for
q
proxy,
either
next
week
or
the
week
after
that,.
C
B
A
Great
yeah
and
then,
if
you
that's
already
like
plenty
on
your
plate,
but
if
you
do
have
time,
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
see
like
another
cap
to
pick
up
where
we
left
off
on,
like
looking
at
instant
specific
ideas
around.