►
From YouTube: OCI Weekly Discussion - 2022-09-15
A
A
B
A
Oh,
you
said
something
about
that
is
it?
Are
you
born,
like
part
of
the
organization
with
that
or.
B
Yeah
I
was
helping
put
it
together;
it
was,
we
probably
need
more
help
to
put
together,
but
we
got
a
little
event
put
together
and
got
him
in
there
to
do
a
little
bit
of
a
talk.
It
was
interesting,
though,
because
he
was
timing,
that
between
all
kinds
of
chaos
earlier
in
the
day
and
then
flying
off
to
California
after
the
event,
so
he
kind
of
showed
up,
gave
his
talk
and
then
ran
away.
A
I
wonder
what
he's
doing
in
California,
yeah
yeah
John's
great!
That's
cool
that
you
guys
love
that
coach.
B
Yeah,
so
what
probably
catch
up
a
little
bit
more
in
the
future?
B
B
B
Sanjay
had
another
one
saying
you:
he
needed
people
to
approve
the
refers
field
getting
renamed
and
we
approved
it.
So
I
think
that
part
is
all
solid
and
finished
up.
B
A
B
I
know
we
were
putting
this,
you
know
getting
everything
merged
in
there.
One
of
the
comments
was
hey.
We
can
merge
this
right
now,
knowing
that
it's
not
tagged
yet
and
so
jump
in
too
quick
and
say.
Okay,
now,
let's
tag
it,
we
might
upset
some
people,
so
it
does
feel
like
a
good
plan
to
give
it
some
time
for
folks
to
actually
get
some
implementations
get
some
experience
with
this,
so
they
can
say
yeah
we
we've
tried
out.
It
actually
works
things
along
those
lines.
A
A
Yeah
I'm
reading
it
right
now
the
9521.
A
B
Getting
pretty
close
on
that
Michael
Brown,
which
Michael
Brown
do
we
have
today.
B
B
C
B
I
I,
like
it
equally
I
I,
cannot
I,
cannot
select
my
favorite
Michael
Brown.
B
That
that
would
be
like
pick
my
favorite
cohorts
and
all
this
stuff
before
I
dig
myself
in
any
deeper.
Let's
see
so
I
know
he
had
a
couple
of
items
on
there
that
we
haven't
done
otherwise
we're
getting
really
close.
We
just
had
the
one
reviewer
left
for
one
of
sanjays
and
then
we've
got
that
merged,
so
I
think
we're
looking
pretty
good
there.
B
A
So
so,
if
you
open
this
on
image,
spec
but
I,
mostly.
B
A
This
as
a
as
a
boat
yeah,
we
could
definitely
do
conformance
on
on
the
distribution
spec
side
using
that
harness.
My
kind
of
question
is.
A
So,
are
we
going
to
treat
if
you
don't
have
some
of
these
features
as
a
failure
to
conform
to
a
1.1
or.
A
What
are
people's
thoughts
on
that?
Because
people
could
pull
down
the
1.0
tag
and
the
for
the
test
will
pass
and
you
can
say,
you're
a
1.0
compliant
but
not
1.1,
or
we
can
just.
B
I
was
leaning
that
direction
to
say
if
you
want
to
be
1.1
conformant
to
support
the
new
apis,
we
still
have
the
1.0
that
you
can
always
go
back
to
and
say
that
you're
conforming
with
the
old
version
it
it
lets.
People
play
both
sides
of
that,
but
us
given
a
little
bit
more
value.
What
the
conformance
test
actually
means.
A
C
Lucky
opened
this
issue,
I
mean
he,
unfortunately
wasn't
your
duty,
so
he
couldn't
make
it.
What
he
mentioned
before
he
left
was.
These
are
items
to
consider
doesn't
mean
we
must
have
them,
but
more
like
what
is
the?
C
What
is
an
agreed
upon
checklist
of
of
items
that
we
can
do
so
that
maintainers
are
happy
in
cutting
like
I,
think
people
are
already
assuming
1.1
so
have
we
agreed
on
1.1
as
a
as
a
tag
that
we
want
to
cut
or
like
1.1,
RC
or
draft
like
we
need
a
draft
first
version
of
the
specification.
C
Also,
the
main
criteria
was
so
that
other
tools
and
other
people
are
kind
of
waiting
on
some
tag
that
they
can
take
dependency
on,
would
kind
of
like
light
up,
and
they
can
take
those
types
like
the
new
descriptor
and
the
new
artifact
and
the
Manifest.
That
was
the
motivation,
so
we
can
keep
the
bar
low
to
kind
of
get
a
draft
release
if
we
want
to
or
go
all
the
way
and
say
that,
okay,
this
is
the
plan
for
draft.
C
This
is
the
plan
for
1.1
and
1.1
will
come
if
draft
is
not
seen
any
changes
for
the
next
about
two
to
three
months
or
six
months
or
whatever
time
frame.
So
the
checklist
is
more
like
just
to
kind
of
get
the
conversation
started.
So
what
is
the
what's?
The
general
direction
we
want
to
take
is
is
both
the
discussion
that
I
was
hoping
we
could
kind
of
like
land
on
what
kind
of
attack
do
people
want,
and
what
are
they
happy
with?
If
it's
a
draft
that'd
be
good
enough.
B
I'm,
leaning
toward
1.1
I
think
I
think
we're
I
think
there
was
some
consensus
on
that
last
time
doing
an
RC
sounds
like
a
good
plan
to
me.
I
see,
we've
done
that
before
on,
like
the
1.0
release
and
so
getting
something
out
there
saying
it's
a
1.1rs,
DOT,
o
r
c
for
just
to
raise
some
visibility
sounds
like
a
good
plan.
B
We
also
not
to
distract
from
this.
I
still
want
to
focus
on
this,
but
there's
also
the
other
requests
to
the
1.0.3
I
think
was
to
have
a
couple
of
those
things
preceding
all
the
work
we
did
with
this.
Get
that
pulled
together
and
merge
as
a
tag.
I
just
don't
know.
If
there's
some
coordination,
we
needed
between
cutting
that
tag
and
cutting
an
RC
for
this.
A
I'm
in
big
support
of
doing
RC's
just
to
flex
the
release,
muscle
like
we
don't
do
this
very
often
and
stuff's
probably
broken,
and
we
should
practice
so
even
if
it
is
like
today,
I
think
it'd
be
worthwhile.
At
least
maybe
once
we
figure
out
the
wording.
Stuff
fix
all
the
wording,
but
I
also
think
1.1
makes
total
sense.
I
think
the
way
that
we
went
through
the
working
group
was
to
be
backwards
compatible
and
it's
my
understanding
of
December's
correct.
That's
the
correct
tag
for
both
of
these.
B
Yeah,
hopefully,
I
haven't
broken
any
of
the
release
processes.
With
all
my
changes
to
get
up
actions
lately,
I
did
want
to
sit
down
with
feedbacks
or
whoever
has
been
doing
some
of
the
releases
over
on
images
back
and
see
how
we
need
to
work
that
process
over
there
to
cut
like
a
1.0.3
in
general,
so
I
think
he's
been
doing
a
few
of
the
few
of
the
release.
Recent
releases
right.
A
B
That's
where
I
want
to
pull
in
someone
like
feedbacks
or
whoever's
been
doing
some
of
these
before
say.
B
A
As
well
so
I'm
looking
at
the
history,
I
think
there
was
the
there
was
the
security,
the
content,
type
security,
cve
and
the
date
seems
to
line
up
with
that.
So
I
think
we
had
a
bunch
of
things
that
happened
so
that
v1o
branch
is
for
if
we
needed
to
patch
things
onto
for,
like
a
V1
that
owed
that
to
passionately
so
I
I
would
ignore
that,
in
the
context
of
the
reference
types.
B
A
C
So
so
they're
not
tags
for
1.0.
RC
already.
Can
we
maybe
on
the
issue,
comment
that
if
you
want
to
do
1.1
RC
and
then
maybe
we
can
send
an
email
to
the
mailing
list,
saying
that
hey
V
bats?
Can
you
help
us
with
cutting
this
tag?
C
If
there's
no
outstanding
issue
for
RC
release
and
then
have
these
other
checklists
before
GA?
What's
that's
kind
of,
like
maybe
we'll
at
least
get
a
tag
out
so
that
others
can
use
these
types
and
get
a
draft
or
because
I
think
people
are
waiting
to
kind
of
like
have
dependency
on
making
sure
that
okay,
it's
checked
in
domain?
What
next?
How
can
we
consume
this
thing?
A
I
yeah
I
would
be
happy
to
do
cut
it
today.
I
know
in
the
past,
when
we
did
distribution,
spec
RCS
it
went
through
the
mailing
list.
I,
don't
know
how
strict
we
want
to
be
with
that,
but
I
can
pull
up.
A
mailing
I
can
pull
up
a
email
that
I
sent
for
distribution,
spec
RC,
but
it's
like
you
put
it
up.
A
F
Yeah,
basically,
it's
like
you
would
expect
right.
We
need
to
have
a
boat
for
the
maintainers
and
it's
got
to
be
a
majority.
F
F
F
A
So
you
open
a
PR
that
changes
a
go
file
from
Dash
Dev
to
the
RC
or
if
it's
a
release
you
change
it
to
empty
string.
Then
you
open
a
PR
with
that
and
then
you
send
an
email
out.
Here's
a
PR
to
tag
this
commit
as
this
and
then
you
make
another
commit
I
wish
feedback
was
here
there
you
make
another
commit
to
revert
it
back.
Then.
A
F
A
F
I
you
know
generally
I
would
open
up
an
issue
right
saying
we
we'd
like
to
make
a
new
release
candidate,
a
new
release
and
go
through
a
candidate
cycle
to
try
to
force
the
feedback
and
get
the
feedback
right.
So
I
opened
an
issue
and
you
know:
go
over
the
list
of
pull
requests.
I
guess
that
are
the
where
the
major
changes
to
make
it
a
little
easier
for
the
reviewers
and
then
we
should
probably
hold
a
special
call
with
the
set
of
maintainers.
If
we
can
find
a
date,
you.
D
F
D
F
B
A
I
I
just
want
to
caveat
that
I
messed
this
up,
so
we
should
ping
dbats
also
run
C.
They
last
year
had
like
dozens
and
dozens
of
releases
that
Alexa
worked
on
and
we
could
look
at
what
they
did
because
I
think
they
were
doing
that
a
lot
but
I
think
all
of
the
repos
kind
of
follow
the
same
type
of
process
and
the
CI
works.
The
same.
E
F
C
It's
it's
basically
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is:
that's
going
to
walk
out,
put
a
candidate
tag
and
the
schedule
a
meeting
with
the
maintainers
to
agree
on.
If
this
is
a
good
enough
cut
for
RC
I,
don't
have
a
plan
for
GA
yet
because
let's
get
the
RC
done
first
and
then
we
can
kind
of
go
to
GA.
As
my
my
take,
and
once
we
kind
of
have
other
people
responding
back
that
the
spec
is
good
enough.
Maybe
we
can
then
open
up
the
discussion
for
GA
tag
separately.
F
A
Know
yeah
I'm
just
saying:
we've
had
lots
of
meetings
and
so
yeah.
It
could
be
the
case
that
we
put
up
the
RC
and
we
just
get
a
bunch
of
LG
TMS
and
that's
that
yeah.
F
F
C
F
And
and
to
be
fair
right,
the
last
time
we
went
through
the
release,
candidates
with
production
code
from
kubernetes
and
all
the
container
runtime
right,
so
release
candidates
have
a
little
more
cache.
If
you
will
than
just
then,
then
you
would
expect
with
the
normal
kind
of
repo,
and
that's
why
I'm
saying
yeah,
we
probably
need
a
vote
for
it,
because
you're
basically
saying
yeah
here
you
go.
This
is
this
is
what
we're
probably
going
to
be
shipping
with
small
changes.
C
A
A
Yeah,
that's
what
I
was
going
to
say:
I
think
we
should
get
this
one.
We
should
get
the
950
in
I'm
gonna
bug
like
Stevo
right
now
or
something,
but
is
there
anything
remaining.
B
B
B
So
I
did
want
to
say
in
addition
to
that,
so
we've
got
a
proven.
I'm,
50
and
that'll
be
the
key
piece.
I
think
we
are
remaining.
We
had
our
checklist
and
Mike
since
you're
here,
I
think
everything
on
this
list-
that's
remaining
was
under
your
name
and
so
I
wanted
to
touch
base
with
you
and
figure
out.
What
else
was
on
here
that
we
needed
to
solve
because
I
wasn't
sure
where
you're
going
with
some
of
these
things,
so
I
wanted
to
double
check
with
you.
F
F
B
B
B
F
Not
as
an
artifact
type
but
the
under
specified
under
Ayanna,
it
would
have
to
be
a
blob
as
an
as
an
image.
Index
right
with
this
annotation
I
guess
I'm,
not
sure
how
they
separate
today,
Helm
charts
as
an
oci
image
versus
an
artifact
image
in
a
district
in
a
oci
registry.
If
you
will
that
doesn't
have
support
for
artifacts.
B
Let
me
I
don't.
B
F
Fair
yeah
I
guess
what
I'm
basically
saying
here
is
that,
because
you
have
added
a
new
field
right
or
a
new
type,
if
you
will
in
the
list
of
images
and
artifacts
now
in
an
animage
index,
what
does
it
mean
if
there's
no
referrer
there
right?
Obviously,
you
can't
refer
to
the
index
because
there
is
no
digest
yet
for
it
right
until
it
is
there
and
that'll
be
a
different
value
for
anything
you
put
in
that
array.
F
B
Yes,
so
today
they
ship
it
up
as
a
sorry
I
like
the
wrong
line
here
as
an
image
manifest,
and
it
just
has
a
custom
config
with
our
media
type.
This
is
our
definition
of
how
you're
supposed
to
be
pushing
artifacts
today
and
then
their
own
blob,
for
whatever
their
layer
is
of
their
own
content
type
on
their
layer.
F
B
B
So
I
could
do
something
like
this,
where
I
just
say,
you
know
making
an
index
here
with
a
get
my
options
for
doing
this
thing,
let
me
say
ref
of
this
reference
and
then
I
can
even
say:
descriptor
annotation
here
of
Elm
equals
true,
or
something
like
that.
You
know
put
some
funny
annotation
in
there
right.
F
F
B
F
B
F
F
We
don't
we
don't
have
to
have
an
answer
for
it.
It
just
seems
to
me,
like
an
obvious
use
case
right.
F
Indexed
and
that'll,
be
you
know
for
that
index.
B
A
Yeah
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
we
open
whatever
we're
discussing
right
now,
open
as
a
as
an
issue
or
something
and
I
so
Steve
went
ahead
and
approved
number
950.,
so
I'm
wondering
for
the
rest
of
this
call,
if
it's
a
good
use
of
our
time,
to
walk
through
the
release
process
together
and
get
that
email
out
if
it
gets
shot
down,
it
gets
shot
down.
But
I
think
it'd
be
nice
for
us
all
to
understand
that
process
and.
F
B
C
So
I
went
and
looked
back
at
image,
spec
1.0
release.
There
was
a
milestone
associated
with
it
that
had
a
set
of
burned
on
items,
and
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
project
management
thing
that
some
that
maybe
we
need,
for
instance,
or
somebody's
help
to
do
to
create
a
milestone,
then
tag
but
for
RC
I
could
not
find
a
burn
down
list.
I
only
found
it
for
1.
B
B
B
B
That
was
also
kind
of
why
I
was
sorting
some
of
these
things
out.
So
we
got
a
remain
test
that
one
I
think
we
are
done
with,
and
then
let's
see
this
one
I'd
like
to
see
get
in
there
at
some
point,
but
I
don't
mind
that
gets
pushed
into
a
later
RC.
F
B
C
F
D
F
F
B
D
A
C
So,
do
we
want
to
use
this
issue
to
vote,
or
should
we
create
or
should
I
just
create
another
one
with
a
1.1-0
RC
for
voting.
C
C
Okay,
I'll
put
in
the
links
that's
provided
earlier,
which
is
the
governance
as
well
as
maybe
a
link
to
the
prior
release
and
and
add
the
add,
a
link
to
the
cutter
release
issue
as
well,
just
to
kind
of
put
everything
in
one
place.
Anything
else
at
this
point.
A
Yeah
there
one
of
the
links
I
put
in
the
chat,
maybe
you
can
pull
up
sure
the
264
or
distribution.
C
How
do
you
I'm
sorry?
How
do
you
want
me
to
do
this?
Do
you
want
me
to
create
another
file
or
or
okay.
C
C
All
right
anything
else
before
I
move
on
to
this
one
or.
A
C
F
A
Here
yeah,
the
thing
is
I
think
the
vote
actually
must
happen
on
the
mailing
list,
and
then
the
mailing
list
must
just
point
to
this
PR.
So
I,
don't
think
the
contents
of
the
pr
really
mattered.
What
needs
to
be
in
the
pr
is
the
specs.go
needs
to
change
from
Dash
Dev
to
something
needs
to
change.
A
The
LA,
the
the
actual
PR
contents,
the
actual
PR
contents,
have
to
modify
that
last
file
that
I
put
in
there
and
changing
version
Miner
to
from
zero
to
one
version
patch
from
two
to
zero
and
version
Dev
to
RC,
0
or
RC.
One
I
don't
know
what's
correct
there
and.
A
A
C
B
C
Because
that
makes
it
easy
to
tag
the
specific
digest
right,
I
think
that's.
That
might
be
the
trick
here.
B
B
C
So
one
of
us
can
probably
pick
up
the
pr
and
we
can
create
the
world
issue
with
this
PR
and
once
the
water
is
done,
we
merge
the
pr
in
is
that
the
idea.
C
And
I
don't
see,
but
okay
yeah,
that's
fine!
Somehow
we
managed
to
get
the
word
and
then
but
London
I
think
the
pr
is
important
to
kind
of
like
toggle.
This
get
one
commit
with
RC
one
1.1.0.
rc1
and
then
once
the
word
is
done,
the
checklist
somebody
will
go.
A
Yeah
yeah.
B
A
Great,
we
have
an
ambiguous
should
anyway,
that's
just
kind
of
How
It's
been
done,
I
I,
think
the
actual
approval
should
happen
on
GitHub
honestly,
but
the
important
part
I
think
is
it's
left
open
for
a
week
and.
A
A
D
D
A
B
B
Okay,
so
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
there
actually
is
when
this
thing
is
tagged,
I'll
give
up
action,
we
do
have
a
release,
action
that
triggers
off
the
V.
Whatever.
E
F
B
I
thought
something
here
might
have
been
building
but
I
guess
not.
You
know
it'd
be
good
to
add
in
here.
If
it's
not
already
done
the
building
of
the
PDF.
A
C
I
mean
distributions
like,
if
you
can
handle
that
video
I'll,
do
it
for
you
at
spec
and
I
think
once
we
get
the
watch
and
let's
have
the
discussion,
I
think
that's
important.
Okay,
thanks
for
everybody
for
pointing
all
these
things,
because
I
don't
know
where
I
need
to
look
for
this.
The
links
were
helpful.
Yes,
we
and
we'll
use
the
previous
issues
to
kind
of
like
make
this
process
a
little
better.
I
think
documenting
this
after
this
is
done,
might
also
help.
A
Yeah
I
I
have
a
feeling
it'll
be
at
least
a
couple
weeks.
Unfortunately,
even
though
we're
done
so
yeah,
maybe
through
this
process,
we
can
improve
the
process
in
the
process,
but
thank
you
for
volunteering,
Sanjay
and
yeah.
Just
keep
us
posted,
maybe
just
put
something
in
slack
or
something.
Okay.
She.