►
From YouTube: 2019-05-07 Rook Community Meeting
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
A
Don't
know
if
there
has
been
any
progress
on
these
issues,
since
they
are
not
in
the
in
progress
column,
but
is
there
anyone
who
wants
to
speak
up
about
some
of
these
issues?
I
think
the
host
networking
one
like
looks
like
a
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
if
owners
a
blocker,
but
it
looks
like
an
issue
to
track
to
keep
track
of
my
sauce
Travis
mentioned
on
slack
that
folks
that
are
using
host
networking
should
hold
off
on
upgrading
to
1.0.
C
Investigation
started
I'm
I'm,
not
able
to
reproduce
the
issue,
but
Travis
was
with
mini
cube
and
so
I'm
in
a
situation
where
my
qadian
cluster,
which
is
theoretically
more
similar
to
what
the
issue
Reporter
reported
like
I'm,
not
able
to
to
repair,
what's
going
on,
Travis,
wasn't
mini
cube,
but
mini
cube.
Just
fails,
transit
did.
C
B
B
Well,
I
I
think
the
user
has
a
class
of
modern
OneNote,
so
well
still
how
many
qubits
we
had,
but
still
4x
lost
off
the
user.
It
probably
is
a
firewall
at
least
another
issue
that
was
open
for
an
issue
one.
That's
you
basically
got
close
to.
If
you
have,
my
cluster
network
was
broken,
which
sorry
guys,
but
it's
90%
of
the
time.
It's
a
network
issue
in
the
cluster,
not
who,
though
I
think
in
that
case
I,
have
probably
tried
out
in
some
other
environment
you
and
see,
if
I'm
able
to
it
really.
C
A
C
And
and
I
find
it
a
little
bit
strange
that
I,
like
I
I,
have
a
3-node
set
up
right
now
that
I'm
testing
that's
the
same
number
of
nodes.
As
the
person
who
reported
the
issue,
they're
both
cube
a
DM
like
I'm
using
pod
security
policies,
which
I
mean
I,
would
think
would
make
mine
break
before
his
would.
But
that's
not
not
the
case.
Yeah
I'm
stumped
all.
A
Right
well
with
we'll
continue
investigating
into
that
and
we'll
update
the
issue
there,
the
other
ones
here,
I,
don't
think
I
am
just
looking
at
them.
I
don't
think
I
have.
Is
it's
much
concerned
about
that
host
networking
issue
that
you
know
that
we
were
actively
telling
people
to
hold
off
on
upgrading
for
so
that
that
one
three
three
one
one
one
sounds
like
the
most
the
highest
priority
here
and
the
other
ones.
A
B
B
A
So
you
know
we
will
need
you
know
soon,
we'll
be
ramping
up
on
1.1
and
getting
some
some
agreement
about
the
scope
of
issues
and
that
milestone
and
planning
for
that
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff,
but
I
think
right
here
on
the
heels
of
getting
one
dot
Oh
out.
You
know
we
can
focus
on
getting
patches
out
that
we
need
to
in
stabilizing
and
helping
support
the
user
base
as
well
to
to
get
everyone
get
everyone
upgraded
and
file
issues
and
fix
them
and
drive
to
you
know
more
quality
in
that
release.
A
But
it's
still,
you
know
very
happy
very
pleased
with
everybody
and
the
efforts
to
get
xur
1.0
else.
So
that's
great.
The
next
topic
that
I
had
was
a
bit
of
a
post-mortem
or
a
retrospective
on
the
one
danau
process,
and
if
anybody
had
any
observations
or
complaints
or
ideas
for
things
that
we
do
better.
A
C
D
C
I
I
have
several
things
which
are
related
to
some
of
the
the
issues
I've
posted
being
that
train
trying
to
actually
get
1.0
out
is
difficult,
even
like
during
a
like
a
when
we're
theoretically
like
code
for
us,
and
we
we
need
more
CI
runners.
We
only
have
two
runners
and
it
takes
like
one
to
one
and
a
half
hours
to
run
CI
and
that
just
stalls-
everything
which,
especially
around
release
time,
makes
things
like
a
lot
slower
than
they
need
to
be.
C
C
When
you
know,
I
I
gave
my
presentation
at
the
open
infrastructure
summit,
with
the
understanding
that
you
know,
rook
was
supposed
to
be
released.
The
day
after
I
gave
my
talk
and
was
like.
Okay,
like
I,
will
report
that
that
you
know
people
can
go
play
with
version
1.0
after
that,
but
it
still
wasn't
until
yesterday
or
today
that
it
was
finally
released
like
a
full
week
later
and.
A
C
I
mean
I
I,
don't
actually
know
when
it
was
released,
I
guess,
but
it
was
still
pushed
back
and
pushed
back,
and
the
reasoning
that
I
kept
hearing
for
why
it
was
pushed
back
was
waiting
on
a
bound
to
finish
like
a
website
facelift
and
it's
it's
not
a
health.
The
upstream
community,
when
a
single
company
is
going
to
stall
a
release
for
things
that
aren't
critical,
functional
issues.
A
Okay,
I
think
that
you
know
I,
think
that
that
speaks
to
needing
more
visibility
into
a
release
process
or
about
what
are
the
issues,
but
it
was
my
understanding
that
we
had
agreed
upon.
You
know
the
the
website
being
updated
along
with
the
was
one
dot
over
lease
as
well,
so
I,
wouldn't
I
would
I,
don't
think.
It's
necessarily
fair
to
say
you
know
a
single
company
is
stalling.
The
whole
thing
I
think
that
an
accurate
characterization
of
it
I
think
it's
different.
C
D
Lying
there
was
a
for
companies
involved,
including
the
seat,
including
the
CNCs
trying
to
get
press
lined
up
media
opportunities.
It's
a
it's
a
big
release
and
we
wanted
to
make
a
big
splash
around
it
and,
as
you
know,
these
things
actually,
the
level
of
coordination
is
quite
significant
in
trying
to
get
four
different
parties,
plus
press
plus
marketing,
plus
everything
else
around
there
and
aligned
around
the
release.
So
it's
not.
It's
not
I.
D
A
D
Think
that's
that's.
I
really
thought
that
she
talked
on
I'm,
not
sure
where
we
would
communicate
this.
Maybe
it
needs
to
maybe
they're.
Like
one
thing
we
didn't
laid
was
we
created
a
v1
released
slack
channel
and
we
were
trying
to
coordinate
with
that,
but
that
came
quite
late,
so
maybe
for
visibility
purposes.
We
could
have
done
that
earlier
or
communicated
that
earlier.
D
D
Yeah
and
I
don't
think
there
was
an
intention
to
not
involve
people
I
think
it's
just
trying
to
get
coordination
around
this
thing,
so
so
I
think
you're
right,
we'll.
Well,
we
should
think
through
what
it
means
to
like
for
as
a
release
process,
we
should
probably
think
through
what
it
means
to
kind
of
be
more
involved
more
folks
or
we
have
more
transparent
around
the
actual
release
process.
D
D
Won't
one
more
thing
on
the
CI
runner,
Stefan
I
I
thought
it
was
a
I
thought.
We
had
a
discussion
about
this,
that
we
should
just
go
ahead
and
increase
the
CI
runners
I'm,
not
sure,
but
surprised
that
we
just
didn't
do
that
I
think
there's!
No!
This
is
not
a
cost
issue
or
anything.
I
I
think
it's
just
a
bandwidth
of
building
go
configure
the
new
CI
runners.
A
A
A
A
All
right,
let's,
we
can
get
some
of
Travis's
feedback
as
well
when
he
is
back
online.
So
the
pending
release
notes
issued
here
Alex.
What
was
a
talk
about
that.
B
B
Well,
but
like
it,
I
began
really
signing
or
creating
their
proof
of
concept,
or
something
at
least
which
route
for
testing
to
put
like
that
in
itself,
while
not
completely
ready
about
insert
in
yourself
working
and
well.
At
one
point,
the
state
forces
hey
upon
has
someone
already
working
on
it,
which
well
kind
of
cost
me.
If
you
a
good
amount
of
work
time
which
are
kind
of
lost,
and
in
that.
A
Did
you
so
there's,
obviously,
some
miscommunication
about
responsibility
for
updating
the
website,
or
you
know
assignments
of
of
that?
Basically
did
we
have
like
a
tracking
issue
for
that?
That
was,
you
know
like
being
tracked
in
the
on
the
milestone
and
the
release
of
the
project
board
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff
and
like
I,
signed
and
everything.
A
Yeah
well
yeah,
it
definitely
does
sound
like
there
was
a
you
know,
some
miscommunication
or
you
know
the
failure
for
everyone
to
make
known
what
they
were.
You
know
what
the
plans
were,
so
that
kind
of
goes
around.
The
first
bullet
point
as
well
like
response
to
this
element.
Take
that
one
it's
kind
of
a
separate
alone,
yeah.
B
Yeah
bits,
basically
again
the
more
or
less
we
need
to
have
it
open
it
transparent
enough
that
we
would
have
also
created
an
issue
for
well
really
sigh
and
website,
for
example.
But
then
everybody
knows
what's
going
on
and
class
explains
that
there's
the
tourist
in
the
end,
nothing
really
behind
the
curtains.
A
B
I
am
sure
part
was
Travis,
as
you
wrote,
depending
or
well
the
actual
release
notes
again
and
I
more
or
less
was
thinking.
Why
don't?
We
just
well
have
a
label
for
flow
requests
that
is
I,
don't
know
like
saying
hey.
This
is
important
for
the
release,
notes
or
something,
and
maybe
even
in
the
end
like
have
a
bot
which
then
compiles
it
based
on
a
list
based
on
these
PRS
labeled,
but
for
the
first
part
that
we
simply
have
a
label
which
marks
the
PRS
hey.
B
This
is
important
because
at
least
what's
for
me
from
time
to
time
happening,
I
make
my
fear
it's
already.
It's
reviewed
as
green.
We
just
need
to
merge
it,
and
then
it's
like.
Oh
wait
a
second,
it's
this
important
for
the
release,
notes
or
what
doesn't
be
not
important
and
in
the
worst
case,
I
would
just
need
to
go
ahead
again,
edit.
My
PR
wait
for
CI
and
everything
to
run
again.
Just
for
this
pinning
release,
notes,
change,
I,.
A
Think
with
that,
if
you're,
if
you
want
to
edit
the
you
know,
pending
release,
notes
after
you've
kind
of
done
the
code
and
gotten
a
green
build,
then
I
am
perfectly
fine
with
doing
a
either
one.
Adding
the
skip.
Ci
keywords
to
the
pull
request,
description
or
you
know,
running
the
build
there
with
the
new.
You
know,
skip
integration
tests,
description.
A
Perfectly
fine
that
you
don't
have
to
wait
on
all
the
unit
tests
and
stuff
to
run
if
the
only
change
you
made
was
updating
the
pending
release.
Notes
on
this
whole
label
idea:
I!
Think
that
that
you
know
what
that,
if
we
were
to
do
that
sort
of
thing,
because
well
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
who
necessarily
and
how
an
effective
way,
how
a
bot
would
generate
the
police
pull
request.
A
It
was
you
know
more
a
lot
alive
when
the
poor
request
was
active,
so
I
think
having
that
burden
on
each.
You
know
pull
request
author
to
you
know
to,
in
addition
to
writing
the
code,
to
be
able
to
write
a
few
sentences
about
the
value,
and
you
know
maybe
migration
notes
or
you
know,
any
sort
of
high-quality
content
for
the
release
notes.
It
seems
to
be
very
well
done
in
in
the
context
of
the
pull
request
and
kind
of
distributing
that
responsibility
amongst
all
the
pull
requests.
B
Yeah
well,
this
is
more
or
less
fought
for
the
playoffs
which,
for
example,
don't
don't
get
a
pending
release.
Note
entry
during
their
creation
and
even
during
after
the
merged
like
I,
had
my
PA
was
to
annotations
I
headed
today
with
someone
about
it
was
like
yeah,
hey,
haven't
you
seen
this
new
feature
with
the
annotations
and
the
release,
notes
and
I
looked
at
them?
Wasn't
there
I
mean.
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
B
C
C
We
could
also
kind
of
help
prevent
things
from
being
overlooked
by
having
part
of
the
the
CI
actually
look
for
changes
to
the
release,
notes
and
then
requiring
a
like
a
special
tag
for
like
specifically
like
having
a
PR
without
release,
notes
attached,
and
that
would
be
a
little
bit
more
work
for
I
think
most
PRS.
To
add
that
little
little
you
know
tag
I
think
he
doesn't
like
skip
CI
tag
that
you
would
put
in
brackets
in
the
subject
or.
A
A
D
B
B
There's
small
features
which
sometimes
it's
well
just
I,
don't
know
just
new
environment
here
very
well
and
yes
should
probably
mention,
but
sometimes
just
things,
whereas
that
I'm
at
least
I'm
personally,
not
one
enforcement
sure.
So
that's
more
or
less
way,
I
would
like
to
see
such
a
label
in
general.
There's.
B
C
A
C
A
Yeah,
that's
probably
a
good
rule
of
thumb.
I
think
I
think
that
I
think
that
maybe
we
weren't
just
glossing
over
the
checklist
now
I
think
we
I
don't
know
if
we've
been
paying
it's
the
right
attention
to
it
that
we
need
to,
and
the
checklist
you
know
is
there
with
the
intent
of
you
know,
making
sure
that
the
pull
request
meet
a
certain.
You
know
set
of
criteria,
and
you
know
the
pending
release
notes
is
is
one
of
them.
A
If
we're
not
sure,
yes,
you
know
something
should
be
in
the
pudding
release
notes
then
either
one
it's
it's,
it
doesn't
hurt
to
add
it.
You
know
it's
so
putting
a
quick
note
about
it.
It's
not
gonna
hurt
anything
or
to
you
know
you
can
ask
you,
know,
ask
the
communities
or
you
know,
ask
the
reviewer
or
the
for
requests.
Hey.
Do
you
think
this
should
be
included
and
and
that
sub
is
so
that
we
don't
so
until
this
box
is
checked
or
when
this
box
is
checked
that
we're
we're
done
with
that?
A
We
don't
have
to
worry
about
it
again.
I,
like
it
being
part
of
the
pull
request
process,
so
that
we
have
all
the
context
to
make
that
decision
and
have
be
done
with
it
up
then,
and
not
have
to
worry
about
it
later
on
when
were
scrambling
for
a
release
or
have
forgotten
the
conversations,
it's
all
paged
out
of
our
minds.
You
know.
B
On
the
other
hand,
though,
that
we
also
kind
of
look
into
well
yeah
I
would
really
say
also
to
remind
people
sometimes
or
maybe,
if
we
go
through
beyond
it's
like.
Oh,
why
is
there
no
opening
release,
notes
change,
for
example,
that
would
be
more
reassuring
I'm.
Not
it's
not
like
a
burning
question,
even
if
I
would
look
well,
no,
it's
not
worth
it,
but
500
people
maybe
say
I
know.
This
is
wealthier
to
be
editing.
A
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
alright.
So
we
talked
about
the
CI
runners
and
this
conversation
here
about
versioning
back.
You
know
each
source
writer
separately
from
Brooke
I
think
that
that
sounds
like
that
could
be
a
long
conversation
that
needs
to
be
pretty
well
informed
and
I
would
love
Travis
to
be
a
part
of
that
as
well?
Do
you
think
that
we
could
set
up
some
time
to
talk
about
that?
You
know
after
Barcelona
Blaine.
Would
that
sound
acceptable
to
you
yeah.
C
C
You
know
when,
when
there
are
a
lot
of
back
ends
in
in
ruck
itself,
it
becomes
harder
to
coordinate
a
release.
Mm-Hmm,
you
know
by
saying:
okay
like
seth
has
ready.
Hfs
is
ready,
Cassandra's
ready,
you
know,
I'm,
like
I
I,
think
we
all
did
a
pretty
great
job
this
time.
Actually
it
that's
being
on
this
Paige
at
the
right
time,
but
I
know
that
that's
very
hard
to
do
and
that's
not
something
that
we
can
always
mm-hmm
always
count
on
and
so
having
having
a
way
of
pulling
out.
D
A
We're
all
still
alive
after
cucumber
Solana,
that
is
yep,
said
so
blamed
for
your
next
item.
There
you
know
the
Alex
and
Travis
and
Bassam
and
I
the
current
maintainer
had
met
and
I
think
we
have
now
reached
an
agreement
about
how
to
how
to
implement
a
system
that
unblocks
the
each
storage
provider
to
be
able
to.
You
know,
approve
and
merge
their
own
code
changes
so
to
increase
the
code,
velocity
and
so
I
Travis
said.
We
know
we
had
been
discussing
that
and
incorporating
comments.
A
The
feedback
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff
and
I
had
told
Travis
that
this
week,
I
have
I
am
hoping
to
open
any
pull
requests
now,
with
kind
of
those
converged
agreed
upon
ideas
to
get
it
into
the
repo
and
start
implementing
that
so
I'm,
hoping
that
that
would
you
know
be
able
to
take
remove
some
bottlenecks,
increase
the
velocity
and
unblock
some
of
the
more
active
parts
of
the
codebase
yeah.
C
A
Yeah,
so
the
we've
updated
the
governance
I
think
once
in
the
project
lifecycle
here,
and
there
was
something
there
was
a
discussion
to-
that
you
know
needed
to
be
resolved.
Amongst
the
you
know,
the
maintainer
team
it
did
take
longer
than
we
wanted
to,
and
it
was
also
kind
of
pushed
off
as
a
priority
for
for
other.
You
know
other
work,
items
and
tasks
as
well,
so
it
did
not
go
as
quickly
as
I
would
have
hoped.
I
definitely
personally
could
take
accountability
for
it
not
going
is
as
quickly
as
it
could
have
been.
C
A
Well,
hopefully,
we'll
be
able
to
catch
up
it
it
at
another
conference
sometime
soon,
yeah.
A
Funny,
that's
awesome
and
yeah
I've.
Definitely
looking
forward
to
seeing
everyone
in
Barcelona
and
catching
up
there.
You
know
there
will
be
a
Brooks
Pacific
booth
at
the
CN
CF
is
donated
for
us.
So
come
come
around
this,
the
Brooke
booth
and
we'll
be
able
to
meet
and
discuss
and
have
some
in-person
time,
which
would
be
great
all
right.
So
that's
everything
I
had
on
the
agenda
here.
Did
anybody
else
want
to
bring
up
any
other
items
that
were
not
in
the
agenda
notes.