►
From YouTube: 2019-02-26 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
B
A
Okay,
so
then
that
would
mean,
then,
that
we
only
have
a
single
issue
that
we're
interested
in
in
doing
a
patch
release
for
any
thoughts
on
on
that
I
know.
Yanis
was
you
know
he
did
have
a
you
know
a
strong
ambition
to
make
make
sure
there
was
a
patch
release
for
this.
So
are
there
any
major
objections
to
that
or
thoughts.
B
C
A
A
Let's,
let's
follow
up
with
the
honest
and
then
yeah.
This
would
be
probably
you
know
an
example
of
when
it
was
nice
to
be
able
to
scope
releases
for
specific
storage
writers,
but
right.
B
C
A
All
right,
so
that
should
be
it
for
0.9
then.
So,
let's
talk
about
one,
not
oh,
and
as
a
reminder,
we
we
are
trying
to
get
back
into
the
quarterly
release
cadence.
So
these
we're
targeting
around
the
lates
March
timeframe
for
this
release,
which
would
be
about
another
month
left
and
so
Travis
brought
up
an
agenda
item
here,
for
when
should
we
start
moving
unassigned
issues
out
of
1.0,
since
we
do
only
have
a
month
left
in
the
milestone?
You
know.
A
As
usual,
we
we're
fairly
aggressive
about
the
items
that
we
put
into
the
milestone
at
the
beginning.
You
know
it's
to
give
opportunities
to
the
community
to
pick
up
some
of
those
issues
as
we
go
along
and
you
know
that's
perfectly
perfectly
appropriate
than
if
they
didn't
get
owners,
then
you
know
we'll
move
them
out
of
the
milestone.
That's
fine
and
this
probably
Travis
answer
your
question.
There's
probably
a
set
of
these
issues
here
without
owners
that
you
know,
or
probably
already
clear
that
they're
not
going
to
get
addressed
in
the
milestone
yeah.
B
Yeah,
there's
probably
a
set
of
issues
that
I'd
like
to
still
push
forward
100.
So
maybe,
if
you
know,
if
we're,
if
we
have
hope
of
getting
them
into
one
dot,
oh,
we
could
still
be
aggressive
there
and
keep
them
in.
But
if,
if
there's
no
hope
at
this
point,
then
it
seems
like
we
should
move
them
out
to
1.1
or
even
unassign
them.
A
A
B
C
A
B
A
Oh,
that
sounds
like
a
potentially
a
nice
candidate,
then
to
fit
into
the
0.9
as
well
yeah.
Do
we
want
to
to
follow
up
on
that?
So
we
want
to
go
ahead
and
just
assign
these
the
issues
to
the
0.9
projects
and
then
there
then
they'll
be
on
the
board
there,
and
then
we
can
have
further
discussion
and
maybe
you
you
know,
reject
it
or
or
take
it.
C
B
A
A
In
general,
I
think
I
think
it
was
before
this
one.
You
know
there
I
was
looking
at
the
1.0
board
and
there's
a
pull
request
that
was
assigned
to
the
milestone
and
in
general
I
like
I,
prefer
only
having
issues
assigned
to
milestones,
and
you
know,
poor
requests
are
just
the
vessels
that
in
which
those
issues
that
fixes
for
those
issues
make
it
into
the
milestones,
but
the
in
terms
of
tracking
I
normally
prefer
just
having
issues
tracked.
A
B
B
B
Just
didn't
yet
update
on
that,
so
with
the
so
Nautilus
did
release
its
habits
RC
on
Friday.
So
the
idea
is
that,
with
that
release
coming
out,
we
should
be
able
to
get
the
new
set
images,
and
some
of
the
new
functionality
in
1.0
does
require
Nautilus
to
be
the
base
image
for
the
operator
just
the
set
operator.
B
So
the
idea
is
that,
as
soon
as
we
can
get
the
Ceph
image,
we
would
go
ahead
and
move
the
operator
to
be
to
be
that
as
the
base
image
and
then
get
everything
working
end-to-end
based
on
Nautilus,
which,
in
theory,
probably
within
a
couple
of
weeks,
will
be
released.
I
have
the
final
release,
that's
the
timeline!
So
it's
not
us
as
before.
B
B
C
B
B
A
B
C
A
Yeah,
so
the
yes
okay,
so
there
I
think.
Can
you
see
my
skew
see
the
Twitter's?
Now?
Yes,
Twitter's
cool,
so
there's
you
know
the
post
from
somebody
saying
that
they
found
a
nice
tutorial
about
how
to
deploy
SEF
on
kubernetes-
and
you
know,
ii
or
mentioned
mentioned
us
here,
because
in
that
tutorial
that
which
is
right
here,
it
was
listed
that
the
author
here
wrote
that
this
installer
was
built
to
replace
rooks
F
after
encountering
some
stability
issues
in
2019
we're.
A
So
it's
very
recent-
and
so
you
know,
era
was
asking
for
more
details
about
what
that
was.
I
was
wondering
if
anybody
else's
run
across
this
or
knew
what
the
particular
stability
issues
that
the
author
of
this
might
have
been
talking
about,
because
I
look
at
this-
and
you
know
good
excuse
me,
like
all
these
manual
steps
here,
that
you've
got
to
do
that.
You
know
this
whole
thing
here.
A
Oh
I
will
I
guess
I
like
that
yeah
I'll
send
a
link
to
it
and
slack
so
that
so
that
you
can
people
can
discuss
it
and
see
it.
It'll
be
nice
to
be
able
to.
If
we
could
talk
to
the
I
think.
Maybe
this
is
Jay
Johnson.
Maybe
he
was
the
author
of
it.
Does
anybody
familiar
with
him
I,
don't
know
who
Jay
is
I
have
never
met
him
before.
B
A
B
A
A
Still
the
robot
okay
well
either
way,
I'll
send
a
link
to
that
and
slack
and
we
can
have
more
discussion
there.
Okay,
that's
that's
all
the
items
that
were
listed
in
the
agenda
document
today.
There's
one
more
thing
popping
up
in
the
chat,
probably
blamed
Oh,
oh
okay,
I
blame
does
not
recognize
Jays
name
either.
Okay
got
it.
Explain
thanks
robot
yeah.
B
A
A
Don't
see
anyone
from
edge
of
s
on
the
attendees
of
the
participants
list
right?
No,
no,
they
are
definitely.
You
know
active
on
github
and
in
the
community
at
least
you
know
so
that
they
they
definitely
have
have
been
keeping
up
with
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
things
going
there.
That's
definitely
an
active
provider
so
far,
I'm
happy
with
their
engagement,
yep.
B
A
They
are,
the
application
process
hasn't
even
opened
yet,
and
we
I
think
we've
probably
seen
me
a
handful
like
four
or
five
people
already
interested
in
it,
which
is
great,
for
you
know
the
bringing
interest
and
contributors
into
the
project
and
you
know
getting
to
engage
with
the
wider
audience
and
you
know
being
able
to
implement
more
features.
So
I
love
the
engagement
that
we're
already
getting
from
google
Summer
of
Code
and
it
hasn't
even
started
yet.
So
that's
exciting
and
I'm
also
very
happy
about.