►
From YouTube: KubeVirt Community meeting 2021-01-27
Description
Recording of the KubeVirt Community meeting on 2021-01-27
A
B
C
A
A
A
D
E
G
Just
a
quick
heads
up
that
we
were
talking
recently
about
automating,
the
cuber.org
membership
and
the
pr
on
this
has
initially
landed.
Now.
I
think
no
one
has
yet
used
it
exactly
but
yeah
I
at
least
at
least
it's
it's
working
now
and
then
you
can
propose
your
membership.
If
you
aren't
already
with
the
pr
I
linked
the
original
pr
so
from
there,
you
should
just
see
where
the
configuration
for
the
membership
can
be
added.
G
H
Yes,
we
actually
have
a
mention
of
that
later
in
the
on
the
open
floor,
but
since
we
brought
it
up
now
might
make
sense,
I
don't
have
a
link
to
the
pr,
but
we,
I
believe
the
plan
was
to
move
from
the
google
doc
that
we've
been
using
for
updating
the
or
to
set
the
rules
for
membership
application.
I
think
that
now
exists
as
a
github
pr.
I
know
it
was
being
in
the
process
of
being
marked
down,
so
I
think
a
pr
exists
for
that,
but
chris
can
speak
to
that.
H
If
we're
trying
to
maintain
both
the
google
doc
and
github,
I
would
encourage
moving
to
github
comments
for
being
able
to
to
you
know
to
move
forward,
because
we
can,
you
know
once
again
still
there
get
the
same
effect
where
you
comment
on
the
line
in
github.
Instead
of
commenting
over
on
the
google
doc
site.
I
D
I
G
And
also
I'd
say
that
github
pr
is
much
more
open
to
the
qubit
community,
also
for
externals
and
for
everyone
to
see
than
a
google
doc
right
so
and
yeah.
Everyone
is
con,
confident
that
that
he
can
work
with
with
guitar
prs,
and
I
think
let's
just
stick
to
that,
because
just
we
will
have
to
incorporate
it
into
documents
anyway.
So.
A
I
A
That
would
be
the
goal.
Yes,
I
mean,
but
it's
more
important,
that
we
reach
a
proper
agreement
and
then
that
we
meet
a
specific
date.
But
let's
change
the
question
slightly
to
let's
say:
should
we
give
a
kind
of
a
lay?
I
mean,
let's
take
a
look,
let's
give
some
time
to
for
people
to
comment.
Maybe
it's
worth
following
up
on
the
kubertev
mailing
list.
I
H
A
True
yeah,
of
course,
and
then
just
I
mean
the
merging
of
this
argument
into
the
repo
implies
a
few
follow-ups.
I
mean
there
are
other
documents
in
actually
different
repos
that
talk
about
the
consumer
process
and
those
who
need
to
be
updated
as
well
as
well
as
the
user
guide.
So
there
will
be
there's
more
to
that
than
just
this
pr.
A
C
C
So
if
you're
debugging
and
you
want
to
see
increased
verbosity
of
log
messages
check
out
that
pr,
it
gives
a
an
overview
of
how
you
can
change
keyboard
cr
to
enable
different
verbosity,
based
on
what
components
you're
interested
in
targeting
or
potentially
what
node
you're
interested
in
targeting.
So
if
you
have
a
specific
node
that
you
want
to
just
increase
the
verbosity
on
for
the
vert
handler,
then
you
can
target
just
that
node.
C
If
you
want
to
do
it
overarching
across
the
entire
cluster,
you
can
do
it
using
just
targeting
the
specific
component
and
the
api
and
that
pr's
description
describes
how
to
do
that.
So
anyway,
it's
a
neat
feature.
I
think
it's
going
to
help
out
with
development
and
kind
of
just
tracking
down
some
of
these
more
complex
issues,
and
it
actually
gives
our
law
verbosity
a
meaning.
Now
we're
in
the
past,
you
can
set
verbosity
high
and
then
essentially
you'd
never
see
those
messages
unless
you
went
into
some
custom
things
to
enable
it.
J
A
Okay,
moving
on
the
next
to
the
open
floor,
the
next
topic
was
a
status
update
on
the
keyboard
summit.
Two
things
on
that
we
received
and
by
the
way
david
I
saw
you.
You
were
also
adding
an
item
on
the
agenda
about
this.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
about
the
proposals.
Let
me
give
a
quick
update
on
the
general
status
of
things
so
we're
working
on
on
preparing
all
the
logistics.
There
has
been
a
change
this
week
on
the
logistics
side.
A
That
kind
of
is
delaying
a
few
days,
but
we
aim
to
have
details
by
the
end
of
the
week
that
we
can
share
for
everyone
to
attend
on
the
proposals
or
the
session
sites.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
publish
is
the
schedule
and
what's
the
content
and
that
relates
to
the
sessions,
I
don't
know
david.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this,
or
should
I.
C
I
got
slightly
distracted,
but
I
will
talk
briefly
that
we
got
maybe
hope
you
didn't
just
say
this
because
I'll
be
saying
the
exact
same
thing.
We
got
a
tremendous
amount
of
turnout
way
more
than
we
expected,
and
that
meant
we
had
to
kind
of
shore
up
a
review
team
quickly,
and
we
did
that
across
multiple
companies
and
we
looked
at
the
presentations
we
all
kind
of
independently
raided
them
and
it
ended
up
that
we've
had
to
cut
a
few
which
I'll
I'll
be
responding
on
the
pr's
and
things
like
that.
C
What's
been
accepted,
what's
been
cut
and
we'll
potentially
have
a
waiting
list
as
well
for
the
ones
that
are
in
the
rating
kind
of
close
to
that
line
and
well
I
thank
everyone
for
their
submissions.
This
was
again
way
more.
It
turned
out
than
we
expected
the
event.
Isn't
that
long,
and
we
look
forward
to
kind
of
next
year
being
able
to
do
this
again
and
having
potentially
a
longer
a
longer
event
with
where
we
can
accept
more
people.
C
A
Have
yeah
a
good
problem
to
have
indeed
but
yeah?
I
want
to
emphasize
thank
you
to
everyone
who
submitted
because,
beyond
the
quantity
I
I
would
say
that
the
quality
of
the
submissions
or
the
the
interest
of
the
topics
was,
is
also
significant,
so
yeah
thanks
again
for
every
for
the
interest
and
all
the.
A
E
L
L
C
C
L
M
N
N
E
E
C
N
C
N
C
P
I
can
comment
a
bit
about
this
issue
yeah.
I
am
vasila,
I'm
actually
working
on
it
and,
as
romans
suggested,
I
pick
this
so
basically,
the
issue
is
that
on
the
nodes
we
have
c
groups
version
two
which
are
incompatible
with
the
version
one
and
produces
an
error
during
slice
detection,
which
is
actually
written
in
issue
description.
P
C
C
P
Slice
detection
yeah
that
uses
groups
to
detect
basically
the
slides.
The
second
one
is
with
hot
plug
discs.
It
uses
a
device
controller
and
the
third
one
is
the
reading.
The
cpu
set
file
yeah,
so
the
written
here
so
in
general,
the
issues
can
be
fixed.
There
is
another
problem
with
testing
this
thing,
because
the
sci
now
is
configured
to
use
group
v1
and
in
order
to
enable
the
support
for
v2,
there
should
be
some
kind
of
a
new
vm
with
more
recent
kernel
and
container
runtime.
P
P
P
P
E
C
C
Time
I
think
that
might
be
my
preference
and
we'd
still
keep
c-group
version
one
unit
tests,
so
I
think
the
things
that
actually
parse
the
parsing
logic
and
all
that
we
can
probably
kind
of
solidify
that,
with
unit
tests
to
ensure
a
certain
level
of
compatibility,
even
in
the
future.
If
we
we
don't.
C
For
that
specific
functionality
that
you're
talking
about,
I
would
recommend
syncing
out
with
alexander
wells,
because
he's
the
one
that
wrote
that
recently-
and
he
even
mentioned
it's
known
to
him-
that
secret
version
two
would
not
work
with
that
and
I'm
sure
he
wants
to
get
that
addressed
as
well.
That
might
be
a
little.
P
A
C
C
P
J
E
C
E
E
J
G
To
to
use
this,
one
have
changed
so,
in
my
opinion
at
least,
there
is
no
easy
solution.
I
just
didn't
want
to
close
it
right
ahead,
because
I
think
it's
a
valid
point
and
I
think
we
should
do
something
about
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
the
I
I
think.
The
only
thing
we
could
do
would
be
to
move
the
documents
folder
somewhere.