►
From YouTube: OCI Weekly Discussion - 2023-06-08
A
All
right,
well
Versace
back
how
about
we
go
ahead
and
kick
this
thing
off
so
for
a
day,
I
only
put
on
two
what
I'm
hoping
are
relatively
small
items
and
we'll
see
if
they
stay
small
items
or
if
they
turn
into
lots
of
discussion,
but
the
first
one
on
the
list
that
I
had
was
a
request
for
Tom
will
support
inside
the
platform
struct
which
I
didn't
know
what
to
make
of
this
one.
A
A
B
Well,
this
is
just
for
surday
right,
so
they
can
store
it
in
an
interstitial
format.
I,
don't
see
the
reason
why
we
couldn't
add
Tamil
or
yaml
here
it
wouldn't
actually
affect
the
encoding
yeah
for
image
stack
or
distribution.
Spec.
A
Yeah,
it
doesn't
affect
our
encoding.
It's
it's
just
kind
of
one
of
those
things
of
little
features
like
this
that
are
very
specific
to
external
implementations
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
spec
itself
it.
It
feels
like
one
of
those
things
where
you
start
to
add
one
and
then
you'll
get
20
other
people
saying
oh,
add
ours
too.
B
I
think
that's
sort
of.
Unfortunately,
that's
a
go
problem
right.
If
this
was
an
open,
API
spec
it
when
people
would
be
able
to
generate
their
own
trivially.
A
So
that's
out
there
for
people
to
look
at.
There
is
a
pull
request
sitting
out
for
this.
If
folks
have
opinions
one
way
or
the
other
on
it,
but
I
figured
I
would
raise
it
up,
because
it's
just
something
we
haven't
dealt
with
before.
A
The
other
item
on
the
list
that
I.
C
A
Okay,
he's
doing
a
skip
for
the
warning.
Ron
Kumar
I
think
a
couple
things
with
this
one
going
on
this
was
yours.
Wasn't
it.
A
A
The
general
concern
I
had
while
I'm
getting
myself
back
together
in
here
is
warnings
from
the
conformance
I.
Don't
know
if
that
would
show
up
anywhere
for
end
users
to
look
at,
and
so
is
there
value
to
having
a
warning
inside
the
conformance
check
versus
it's
either
an
error
or
it's
something
that
we
didn't
test
at
all
and
then
there's
some
kind
of
positive
user
feedback
when
they're
looking
at
the
conformist
results.
A
Along
with
you
know
what
tests
were
run
and
we're
looking
at
for
some
of
this
stuff
is
saying:
well
we're
just
going
to
not
pass
or
fail
we're
just
going
to
give
you
a
warning
for
some
of
these
things,
and
so
we
don't
disable
the
check.
But
we
just
say
it's
it's.
It's
just
kind
of
a
warning
in
general,
pull
up,
we've
got
the
conformance
repo
right.
A
So,
if
I'm
looking
through
here
to
say
any
one
of
these
things
that
ran
I
can
see
that
hey,
they
ran
all
these
tests
and
green
passed.
Things
were
working,
there
might
be
some
others
I
think
we
have
one
down
here
somewhere.
Yes,
some
others
that
said,
hey
I,
didn't
run
a
test
on
content
management
or
push
so
I.
I
know
that
the
test
they
ran
and
on
spec
version
1.0
that
they
passed
these
two
and
these
other
ones
say
it
didn't
even
run
it's
not
a
fail,
it's
just,
they
didn't
run
it.
A
C
Right
so
the
the
the
language
and
the
spec,
so
we
we
generate
warnings
for
things
that
are
smarter
should
so
it's
not
really
that
the
test
per
se
has
failed.
C
And
so
as
the
test
as
it
stands
now,
when
we
give
the
feedback,
it
is
mainly
for
developers
who
run
this
test
and
they
get
this
morning,
it's
up
to
them
whether
they
want
to
fix
it
or
not.
A
A
I
think
there
was
another
attempt,
I
don't
know
if
it
was
on
this
one
or
the
other
PR
ramkumar,
where
you
had
specified
like
a
thumped
font
print
line
or
something
like
that.
So
at
least
with
the
G
skip.
I
think
this
gives
a
little
bit
more
visible.
So
this
feels
better
than
me
than
one
of
the
other
attempts.
C
Yeah,
the
the
output
of
this
is
much
nicer,
I'm
trying
to
get
a
so
when
you
do
g
dot
skip
what
happens.
Is
it
skips
anything
past
this?
The
advantage
is
it's
nicer,
the
output,
whereas,
if
you
want
something
to
execute
app
pass
this
line,
we
need
to
do
something
else,
and
there
is
a
way
to
do
it
from
in
Ginkgo,
except
all
of
those
symbols
are
under
internal
and
they
are
not
exported
out.
That
makes
it
much
harder.
A
D
I,
like
the
warnings,
honestly
speaking,
if
we
are
somebody
from
the
registry
to
kind
of
like
get
this
to
get
the
report
published,
they
would
probably
run
this
and
see
this.
The
passive
fail
is
probably
more
like
a
public
view.
Okay,
this
registry
is
okay.
We
don't
with
a
bunch
of
warnings,
it
doesn't
make
sense
on
the
pass
fail
side,
but
it
is
good
to
know
that
whoever
is
running
these
test
is
from
the
registry
and
they
would
be
interested
to
see
These
Warnings.
A
The
empty
description,
it's
sitting
out
there
right
it's
ready
for
review,
I,
think
that
was
as
of
just
last
week,
right.
A
A
C
Does
this
beer
need
any
further
discussion?
Are
there
any
blockers
on
this.
D
Yeah
I
don't
have
any
blockers
if
anybody
else
wants
to
approve
as
well
or
give
some
feedback
that
will
be
helpful.