►
From YouTube: 2019-09-24 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
Okay,
the
recording
is
started,
and
this
is
the
September
24th
2018
Brooke
community
meeting.
We
let's
go
ahead
and
start
talking
about
1.1
and
and
1.2
milestones
did
not
have
to
take
that
when
I
copied
the
block
from
last
week.
So
we
got
1.1.1
out
on
Friday
so
about
four
or
five
days
ago,
and
let's
take
a
look
see
here
at
the
next
upcoming
patch-
that's
released
that
we
may
be
doing
so.
We've
got
a
12
items
in
the
to
do
column
here,
and
a
couple
of
them
are
in
the
review
process.
B
Yeah,
let's
see
there,
I
mean
there
are
a
few
things
that
have
already
been
merged
for
for
a
1.1.2
release
at
some
point,
other
things
in
flight
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
talk
through
these
specific
issues,
but
it
feels
like
we're
still
kind
of
going
through
that
post
release
stabilization,
just
getting
some
some
things
in
that
people
want
in
yeah
I,
don't
so
as
far
as
timeline.
In
my
mind,
there's
nothing
burning.
So
if
we
could
wait
till
next
week
for
the
next
patch
release,
that
would
that
seems
sufficient
company.
B
A
A
C
I
guess
I'd
like
to
to
get
yeah
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
have
one
one
to
purge
until
this
week.
It's
gonna
wait
a
little
bit
I
suppose,
but
yeah
I
guess
I
have
to
pee
ours
in
flight
that
are
good
candidates
for
backboards,
but
they're
not
really
urgent.
One
of
them
is
more
urgent
because
it's
to
be
honest
downstream,
you
related,
but
we're
good
in
terms
of
like
where
we
are
in
the
cycle.
So
yeah,
that's
fine!
If
we
wait
for
next
week
right.
A
B
A
Okay,
and
so
we
are
very,
very
newly
into
the
1.2
effort
here
so
I
know,
we
have
a
number
of
issues
that
we
have
like
in
kind
of.
Some
of
them
were
bit
of
a
parking
lot,
sort
of
thing
of
you
know
park
it
into
1.2,
and
then
some
other
ones
are
more
or
higher
priority
and
some
of
the
storage
writers
do.
You
know
we
haven't
updated
the
this
list
yet
so
this
is
definitely
not
a
full
and
complete
picture,
for
you
know
1.2.
A
B
The
focus
hasn't
turned
to
1.2.
For
my
perspective,
at
least
yet
the
yeah,
the
features
we
needed,
we're
really
according
1.1
I
mean
there's.
Definitely
some
things
in
the
list
here
we'll
want
to
get
into
1.2,
but
it
it
really
needs
some
are
put
into
it.
To
really
say
what
are
we
doing
in
1.2
I?
Don't
think
I
have
a
good
answer
for
you
yet
here
as
far
as
themes
or
what
we're
doing
like
the
collecting
crash
logs
in
submission.
Has
that
one
we're
good
I
mean
there
are
features
I
have.
C
B
A
D
A
B
B
Yes,
with
1.2
and
1.3
coming
up
or
just
think
forward-looking
and
considering
when
coop
cons
are
coming
up.
If
we're
thinking
about
quarterly
release
still
and
1.3
would
be
around
December
and
1.4
would
be
around
March
coop
con
is
generally
follows.
Well,
coupon
is
in
two
months,
first
NDA
go
and
four
months
after
that
really
for.
B
The
I
think
you
know
if
we
were
to
have
graduation
in
time
for
coop
con
San,
Diego
I
would
suggest
we
put
try
and
do
a
shorter
one
dad
to
to
get
us
that
out
right
before
coupon,
but
that's
not
looking
likely
so
just
because
of
our
security
review
right,
so
I
think
just
doing
one
not
to
just
after
tubecon
would
be
sufficient
in
my
mind
and
then
that
would
really
be
the
quarterly
cadence
anyway
and
then
1.3
targeted
for
before
Amsterdam
went.
We
would
be
graduating
yeah
yeah,
so
that
that
was
my
thought
process.
D
A
To
give
a
status
update
on
that
here
in
this
context,
so
you
know
the
the
biggest
long
pole
has
been
the
security
audits.
That
is
a
required
of
the
CNC
of
graduation,
and
so
we
have
Travis
and
I
have
met
with
multiple
security
vendors
firms.
Now
that
the
CN
CF
has
authorized,
or
at
least
has
worked
with
in
the
past
and
has
they've
done
cloud
native,
you
know
project
security
reviews
before
so.
A
D
A
A
Yeah
so
Travis
this
sounds:
that's
somewhat
reasonable.
I,
don't
I'm,
not
like
I.
What
like
content
for
a
1.2.
You
know
there.
There
is
somewhat
of
a
reasonable,
very
tight,
but
somewhat
reasonable
time
period
to
be
able
to
get
a
release
it
out,
but
I
I'm
not
feeling
like
strong
that
you
know
that
it's
compelling
like
we
must
release
before
you
found
San
Diego,
especially
cuz.
It
would
be
somewhat
of
a
you
know
doesn't
seem
like
it
would
be
that
impressive,
or
at
least
because
of
the
shorter
time
period
than
your
normal
cadence
right.
A
B
C
Yeah
but
I
like
to
ask
like
where
we
in
that
position
for
one
owed
to
be
honest,
because
one
or
was
a
milestone
on
its
own,
because
one
open
do.
We
actually
have,
as
you
said,
like
two
set
of
features
that
will
like
make
it
like
a
significant
release
or
not,
and
I
still
I
mean.
Even
if
we
do
a
small
release
like
and
I
mean
we
don't
have
to
have
a
set
of
huge
fingers
too.
Sometimes
it's
also
about
like
stabilization
and
everything
so
having
a
one
to
maybe
before
cube.
B
Right,
if
maybe
we
considered
a
two
months
really
schedule,
so
we
could
have
one
not
find
out
by
March,
even
if
we,
if
we
really
want
to
target
conclude
the
four
months
between
November
and
March,
seems
like
a
bit
longer,
but
but
that
might
be
fine
if
we
were
to
stretch
just
basically
stretch
and
release
around
to
clubs
as
the
goal
I
don't
know.
For
me,
it
comes
down
to
yeah.
What
what
feature
do
we
want
to
announce
in
the
release?
So
so,
why
don't?
B
D
I
guess
I
guess
yeah.
This
is
Rob,
I
mean
having
a
release
around
the
cute.
Con
is
a
good
thing
if
there's
something
meaningful
in
it.
So
if
there's
like,
if
there's
other
storage
backends
that
are
coming
in
or
releasing
a
new
set
of
features
or
something
of
support,
some
something
to
announce
that
is
around,
you
know:
growth
of
the
community
and
the
breadth
of
the
project,
it's
kind
of
nice
to
have
a
release
that
there's
got
some
news
in
it.
A
C
C
C
That
needs
to
be
back
ported
so
typically
we'll
have
a
label,
for
example,
back
port
Belize
1.1,
once
the
PR
on
master
gets
merged,
lurch
fi
will
send
a
backboard
PR
to
the
chair,
picks
X
inside
a
backboard
PR
against
that
really
is
one
one
branch.
Then
the
CI
is
going
to
be
triggered
just
like
all
the
time
and
if
CI
passes
eventually
merge,
if
I
will
also
merge
that
backward
PR.
So
it's
basically
working
for
us.
B
C
No,
no!
What
what
it
does
it
it
it
it's
going
to
create
a
brand
then
cherry-pick
all
the
comments
then
push
that
branch
then
propose
it
against
the
release.
One
one
branch
then
see
I
will
run
so
you
will
get
a
PR.
You
always
backward
PR,
see
I
will
see
the
see
I
will
run
and
eventually
merge
if
I
will
also
merged
at
PR,
f,
the
CIA
screen,
and
only
if
the
CIA
screen
how.
A
So,
on
the
all
the
branches
in
the
project,
they
all
have
branch
to
protection
rules
that
require
an
approval
of
every
poll
request
and
it
can't
be
the
author
of
the
pull
request.
Would
that
still
work
with
merge
five?
Would
it
merge
my
being
able
to
merge
the
requests
automatically
or
without
an
approval?
I
guess.
C
This
is
something
we've
we
have
to
investigate
at
this
moment.
I
don't
have
access
to
the
rules
that
are
in
place
at
this
point,
I
don't
even
have
access
or
the
ability
to
add
mirja
file
to
the
repo
either
so
I
guess
the
only
to
find
this
out
is
just
to
go
ahead
and
merge
and
install
virtue
Phi
as
yeah.
A
A
C
A
Cool
yeah
in
general
I
think
this
is
a
good
idea.
Sebastian,
you
know
I
I
support
this.
To
make
things
easier
and
streamlined.
You
know
sounds
like
we'll
need
a
little
bit
of
hands-on
experience
to
you
know
understand
like
the
config
that
it
might
need,
or
some
of
the
behaviors
of
it,
but
in
general
it
seems
like
a
good
idea
to
make
things
more
streamlined.
Yeah.
C
C
I
think
it's
actually
what's
really
funny.
Is
it's
more
like
a
side
project
for,
though,
is
it
so
yeah
it's
funny,
but
it's
actually
getting
a
lot
of
traction?
No
and
people
actually
really
using
it.
We
have
been
using
it
all
sensible
for
like
more
than
a
year
and
it's
working
like
really
well,
and
it
has
been
like
such
relief
when
doing
backwards.
To
be
honest,
you're.
C
C
Yeah
there
are
really
small
PRS,
sometimes
on
master
as
well,
that
meet
little
attention.
So
if
you
have
one
or
yeah
I
guess,
maybe
only
one
retriever
is
fine
and
that,
if
you
haven't
approved
then
merge
in
NFC
I
passes
then
verify
we'll
also
merge
that
PR.
Maybe
this
is
something
we
can
consider
in
the
future,
but
at
this
point
I
just
want
to
solve
the
backports
problem.
I
say.
B
A
D
A
B
Right,
I
added
that
to
the
agenda
for
him:
I
wasn't
sure
if
he'd
make
it,
though,
apparently
not
so
well.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
this
PR
as
far
as
design
proposal
for
when
to
remove
Seth
OS
T's
like
if
your
and
the
driver
for
this
was
dashboard
scenario,
so
I
used
from
the
Ceph
dashboard
says:
I
want
to
remove
this
OSD
or
this
node.
So
this
is
of
their
proposal
for
how
it
would
happen
and
also,
for
example,
changing
it.
So
we
don't
automatically
remove
OS
DS
if
you
remove
them
from
the
CRV.
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
D
B
D
B
So
the
I
think
the
propose
like
this.
We
need
a
design
doc
to
say
hey.
What
are
we
doing
with
this
change
so
the
in
my
mind,
and
we
definitely
want
to
move
to
the
controller
runtime
as
far
as
handling
the
the
CR,
these
events
and
things
and
we're
actually
using
the
controller
runtime
and
now
in
the
separator,
in
a
couple
of
places,
with
the
new
controllers
that
were
just
added
for
PD,
B's
and
and
MDBs
right,
so
the
and
you
and
you
worked
on
that
so
you're
familiar
with
it.
B
B
A
A
Not
though,
and
then
Travis
I,
like
that,
we
do
have
the
controller
runtime
as
a
dependency
now
recently
from
I
guess
from
the
object
like
it
stuff.
So
that's
really
cool,
because
bringing
that
having
that
in
is
a
tip.
Nfc
is
the
biggest
factor
foundational
thing
to
be
able
to
do
these
more
complicated
controllers.
That
use
you
know
like,
because
operators
SDK
is
based
on
controlling
runtime
controllers
too
right
so
having.
D
A
Like
I'd
really
excited
about
this
to
you,
because
you
know
I,
think
that,
like
being
able
to
you
kind
of
trail
blaze
a
bit
here
and
you
know,
show
some
the
potential
next
iteration
of
operators
and
rook
I
think
is
really
exciting.
So
I
think
I
like
that
you're
taking
this
on
or
that
you
have
that
initiative
to
do
this.
I
think
this
is
a
cool
project.