►
From YouTube: Velero Community Meeting - Dec 7, 2021
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
Hi,
everyone
today
is
december,
8th,
2021
and
here
is
a
community
meeting
of
project
verola
and
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
status
or
project
and
some
other
topic
which
the
team
want
to
discuss.
B
Yeah,
so
I
got
some
prs
in
towards
the
upload
progress
monitoring.
So
those
are
there,
so
I
refactored
the
action
resolvers,
mainly
because
the
as
we
added
a
new
type,
which
was
the
item
snapshotter
plugin,
I
would
have
had
to
copy
paste
some
of
this
code
a
fifth
time,
and
I
didn't
want
to
do
that.
So
instead
I
tried
to
refactor
it
so
that
we'd
have
it
in
one
place,
but
that
wound
up
being
a
fairly
big
pr.
B
It's
like
14
files,
but
I
think
it
actually
simplifies
the
code
and
it'll
make
things
better
in
the
future
and
then
I've
also
got
the
the
upload
progress
feature
flag
is
just
its
own
little
thing,
because
it's
very
small
and
then
the
item
snapshots
file
that'll
go
into
the
backups
is
in
there.
So
that
starts
to
move
us
forward
towards
getting
things
done.
C
A
C
C
We
are,
we
are
going
to
use
different
to
use
golden
1.17
to
compile
valero
and
the
plugins.
So
please
make
sure
you
update
your
go
wrong
in
your
local
development
environment.
C
D
Thanks
dania,
the
next
one
is
wing
thai
yeah,
I'm
trying
to
upgrade
the
gola
and
binaries
used
by
error
plugin,
and
I
also
have
submitted
two
pr's
to
fix
some
issues.
D
But
I
need
to
confirm
the
change
with
nolan
when
he
come
back
from
pto
and
we
are
not
very
sure
about
the
changes
so
yeah
do
the
students
from
me,
okay,
cool.
A
So
what
is
the
issue
related
to?
I
mean
you
did
not
put
the
issue
number
here,
so
maybe
we
can
know
more
more
detail
about
it.
B
A
Yeah,
frankly,
we
we
have
just
witnessed
through
the
status
update
and
if
you
had
any
any
update,
you
can
put
this
in
the
empty
file.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
so
dave
you,
you
want
to
talk
about
it
next
around
the
meeting.
B
Right
yeah,
I
I
think
we
want
to
you
know
just
make
sure
that
everybody
outside
sees
what's
going
on
here
and
has
it.
You
know
it's
not
final.
Well,
it'll
be
there
in
one
eight,
but
it
will
be
only
with
the
feature
flag
turned
on.
So
it's
not
a
supported
feature.
You
know
ga
feature
yet
no
there's
still
time
to
make
changes
in
one
nine.
I
think.
E
The
only
thing
I
can
possibly
think
of
is
bridgette
helped
me
go
over,
so
someone
had
asked
for
a
kubernetes,
valero
compatibility
matrix
and,
while
talking
to
bridget,
she
helped
me
understand
that
there
were
probably
two
types
of
compatibility
matrices
we
could
make
the
easy
one
which
is
I
put
she
helped
me.
I
put
the
text
in
the
comment
for
abby
is,
is
simply
on
what
versions
of
kubernetes
does
each
valero
version
run
on
so
something
like
one
eight
will
run
on.
E
I
think
it's
116
and
to
latest
of
kubernetes
the
more
complicated
one
is.
If
you
have
a
valero
backup
onto
what
kubernetes
can
you
restore
it,
but
talking
to
bridget,
it
sounds
like
it
was
very
specific
to
what
resources
were
in
the
backup
and
if
a
lot
of
people
start
asking
for
it,
we
can
think
about
how
to
create
some
kind
of
matrices.
But
it's
kind
of
up
to
the
people
who
are
backing
up.
I
think
it's
more
of
them
to
compare
resource
versions,
backup
version
to
so
it's
not
really
a
valero
thing.
E
I
think
it's
more
like
understanding
your
kubernetes
versions,
so
just
fyi.
I
I
now
put
that
we
can
t
if
anyone
has
any
disagreements.
We
can
talk
about
it,
but
thanks
to
bridget
who
gave
me
that
information,
I
put
it
in
the
ticket
that
was
requesting
it,
and
now
I'm
hoping
abby
will
will
put
that
as
documentation.
B
Yeah,
that's
that's
actually
kind
of
an
interesting
question,
then,
is
what
do
we?
You
know
we
have
stuff
going
in.
We
have
like
the
resource
api
versioning
that
may
help,
but
I
don't
think
we
guarantee
it
right,
so
probably
only
guarantee
that
it'll
restore
into
the
same
version
of
kubernetes
and
anything
else
is
like
yeah.
If
it
works,
you
got
lucky.
E
G
E
But
if
there's
two
they
won't
and
there
is
documentation.
If
you
look
at
our
cluster,
our
migration
documentation,
it
does
say
that
I
think
maybe
frankie
I
don't
frankie.
I
don't
know
if
you
wrote
it
or
you're
just
involved
in
the
new
documentation
for
that,
but
yeah
exactly.
I
feel
like
it's
up
to
the
user
to
kind
of
parse
for
each
resource,
whether
it'll
upgrade
correctly
but
yeah.
B
I
wonder
if,
if
that's
one
of
the
things
where
we
could
have
kind
of
a
representative
test-
and
I
don't
know,
do
we
you
know,
do
we
have
like
one
of
each
type
of
kubernetes,
so
kubernetes
resources
and
see
if
they'll
restore
properly.
E
I
guess
so
yeah,
I
guess
it's
for
each
resource,
each
version
of
each
resource
on
each
version
of
cooper.
It
just
gets
very
complicated.
I
think
I
would
wait
until
I
hear
a
lot
more
user
demand
and
if
we
did
hear
that,
then
we
could
start
brainstorming
how
to
how
to
do
it.
But
at
least
the
good
news
is
is
the
issue,
the
github
issue
that
was
opened,
one
of
the
more
basic
compatibility
matrix
that
I
bridget
and
I
did
today
so
once
abby
gets
into
the
docks.
We
have
closed
that
issue,
which
is
great.
C
I
I
hope
I
can
double
check.
I
don't
wanna
valero
to
support
too
many
version
of
kurnitz,
so.
C
E
E
Maybe
we
can
say
something
about
supportability.
I
think
it's
totally
reasonable
for
us
to
say.
Yes,
it's.
G
E
E
B
B
E
Yeah
I
mean
from
a
pm
standpoint.
My
thought
is:
I
prefer
for
us
to
work
on
things
that
affect
the
most
users,
so
I
think
of
a
ton
of
users
are
saying:
I've
got
this
bug
on
116.
Then
we
would
consider
fixing
it.
But
if
it's
just
one
or
two
folks
I
have
to
say
I
prefer
that
you
know
I'd
say
you
can
do
the
fix,
but
I
want
the.
I
would
love
to
see
the
valera
team
working
on
on
the
features
that
affect
that
most
people
will
use.
B
I
mean
we
can
always
make
exceptions
to
our
policy
right,
so
we
can
say
yeah,
you
know
we
really.
You
know
we
decided
that
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
fix
this
116
bug,
because
it's
really
bad
and
it's
really
affecting
a
lot
of
people,
but
in
general
you
know
when
someone
shows
up
they're
like
you
know,
it
shows
up
and
it's
like
one
character
off,
and
I
want
you
know
it's
like
nope.
We
just
don't
do
that.
E
I
I'm
supportive
of
that.
I
do
like
that.
Your
point
of
we
can
always
have
a
more
conservative
policy
and
then
a
more
liberal
application
if
we
so
choose
well
daniel,
take
a
look
and-
and
please
think
about
it-
there's
certain
caveats
you'd
like
to
add.
We
can
definitely
discuss
that.
I
I'm
happy
to.
I
am
definitely
supportive
of
setting
clear
expectation,
clear,
whatever
policies.
A
G
B
So
I
see
the
pre
post,
backup
hooks
are
in
discussion.
Do
we
want
to?
Is
that
something
we
actually
want?
Yeah.
C
Yeah
I
just
wanna
discussion,
the
you
know
how
we
decide.
My
point
is,
I,
I
see
two
major
gaps.
I
hope
this
design
can
fit
in
first.
Is
that
how
does
user
get
the
log
of
the
post
backup
and
restore
plugins?
B
C
So
I
think
we
should
have
a
way
to
you
know,
make
sure
you
know
the
you
know:
let
the
user,
who
create
the
backup,
restore
to
selectively,
execute,
search,
plugin
or
somehow
bypass
the
plugin.
B
C
That's
a
good
point,
so
I
think
that
should
also
be
addressed
in
this
program,
but
I
think
rafa
seems
we
do
not
have
such
functionality
for
existing
plugins.
If
not,
he
thinks
it
should
not
be
covered
in
this
one.
My
plan
is,
it
should
be
covered
in
this
one,
because
otherwise
we
cannot
ship
this
feature
until
we
figure
this
out.
That's
my
personal
thought.
I.
C
B
Well,
but
they're
also
they're
they're
under
the
control
of
the
user
right,
so
it's
a
little
different
because
it's
not
a
plug-in
mechanism
per
se,
so
I
think
that's
where
it's
kind
of
the
mix
of
the
two,
but
definitely
being
able
to
specify
either
how
you
run
the
hooks-
and
you
know
this
this
design
right
now.
The
other
thing
we
need
to
have
is:
we
need
to
be
able
to
run
scripts
and
stuff.
I
don't
know
if
this
has
parameters.
Does
this
have
parameters
oops.
B
That's
that's
why
it
doesn't
work,
I'm
looking,
but
do
we
need
to
have
parameters
for
these
hooks.
B
C
C
He
passed
this
backup
object
to
the
plugins,
so
somehow
that
works.
Yes,.
B
C
Currently,
in
the
plug-in
framework,
we
don't
have
this
search
mechanism,
but
normally
for
backup,
automation,
resource
item
action.
We
add
a
logic
in
the
code
of
the
plugin.
C
Okay,
what
dave
could
you
you
know
tell
me
in
the
discussion
I
I
will.
I
will
yeah
that
will
I.
C
B
I
don't
think
it's
a
blocker,
I
mean
the
main
user,
for
it
was,
is
actually
the
migrator
team
initially
and
there
aren't
going
to
be.
I
mean
the
thing.
Is
it's?
It's
not
yet
a
user-facing
feature,
because
you
have
to
actually
write
a
plug-in,
so
you
can't
just
write
a
script
and
run
it
with
this
mechanism.
We
have
to
we're
actually
going
to
have
to
build
a
plug-in
that
fits
in
here
that
can
run
a
script.
C
Okay,
but
I
was
thinking
if
we
you
know
we
put
this
one
in
the
roadmap
and
we,
you
know,
publish
it
to
the
community,
so
once
this
is
merged
to
the
main
bracket,
it
is
user
facing
right
I
mean
we.
B
C
I
I
would
prefer
it,
you
know
it
has
some
proper.
You
know
design
in
this
one
pr
and
we
merge
it
and
you
know
make
it
fc.
That's
my
preference.
B
C
B
Yeah,
yeah
or
or
you
know,
getting
the
stuff
off
the
off
the
nodes,
because
that's
where
we
we
came
to
from
this,
I
think
the
other
questions,
though,
are
very
I
mean
especially
like.
Is
this
always
going
to
run
and
we
don't
even
have
it's
kind
of
difficult
to
uninstall
plug-ins,
so.
C
C
We
should
be
defined
and
there
should
be
a
convention
here.
Everyone
follows
that,
okay,
so
please
chime
in
the
discussion,
so
that
seems
this
one
probably
will
not
meet
our
fc
date.
I'm
not
sure.
If
rafa
has
time
to
refine
the
design
I
mean.
Hopefully
we
can
merge
this
one
before
one.iga,
but
I
don't
see
any
chance.
This
feature
will
be
delivered
to
the
user
by
198.
F
I
think
we'll
still
try
our
best
to
get
this
in
is
is
still
if,
if
what
dave
said
is
okay
to
put
the
logging
in
later,
then
the
design
doesn't
really
need
to
be
changed.
That
much
right.
C
B
I
mean
it's
a
design
right,
so
you
know
the
designs
can
be
updated
afterwards.
I
think
it's
it's
good
to
get
these
issues
in,
but
really
it's
about
probably
putting
down
the
issues
like
hey.
You
know
we're
not
going
to
merge
the
actual
code
until
these
things
are
fixed
so
either
way
I
mean
it's.
It's
the
design
right.
E
Regarding
the
fc
date,
I
do
think
it's
really
important.
I
think
that
the
team
is
healthier
if
we
set
a
schedule
and
we
stick
to
that
schedule.
So
I
do
think
that
we
really
should
do
that
for
one
eight.
I
think
you
know
rafa
can
let
us
know
if
there's
gonna
be
a
huge
blocker
for
him,
then
maybe
well.
E
Hopefully
he
can
well
we'll
talk
there,
but
I
just
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
maintain
our
fc
date,
especially
because
I
know
that
much
of
the
team
will
be
on
vacation
right
after
one
eight
comes
out,
so
it
doesn't
seem
like
we
can
push
back
the
timeline
right,
no
yep,
so
anyways.
G
E
Can
talk
to
rafa
if
he's
gonna
raphael?
If
he's
gonna
have
trouble
with
that,
then
I'll
chat
with
him?
Well,
he
can
prank.
You
feel
free
to
have
him
chat
with
me
and
we
can
talk.
F
E
A
Yeah,
that's
that
good
disgusting
thing
and
for
this
item
I
also
have
a
comment.
I
think
that
is
a
design
for
the
pre-hook
and
the
pressure
hook.
So
if
really
I
mean
cannot
reach
the
fc,
but
we
need
to
get
agreement.
On
the
I
mean
the
questions
that
they
have
throughout
our
other
reviewer
I
post
in
the
comments,
so
we
can
get
it
done,
maybe
before
rc
or
even
even
before,
ga
I
think
yeah
yeah,
maybe.
C
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
this
hook
is
really
useful,
because
currently
the
pre
and
postbook
only
you
know,
cover
the
resource
level,
but
normally,
when
you
qrs
in
qs
a
application,
you
want
to
do
it
per
backup
and
resource
so
yeah.
I
want
this
one
to
be
really
refined
and
I
see
many
people
will
be.
Users
will
be
using
this
one,
although
we
do
not
provide
any.
C
A
Cool
okay,
yeah,
I
have
seen
string
and
me
definitely
have
put
some
updated
in
the
empty
file.
So
were
you
able
to
share
more
information
from
your
site.
H
For
me,
the
rest
of
the
m9
and
the
related
operations
is
already
added
to
the
existing
existing
kit
for
the
1.6.3
and
I'm
trying
to
work
to
add
a
new
release
package
1.7.5
and
for
the
mini
creation,
backup,
backup,
sync
controller.
The
request
is
ready
and
waiting
for
another
review
and
I'm
still
working
on
a
platforming
resource
controller,
and
this
is
in
progress
go
along
and
for
the
gcp
plugin.
I
I
4386
pr
and
the
little
pr
is,
I
even
do
a
lot
of
test
results
filtering
and
that
is
put
a
pr
and
later
I
will
do
something
on
how
to
optimize
our
e2e
test
because
of
the
more
tests
we
are
running.
The
time
will
cost
more.
So
I
am
determined
to
optimize
the
running
time.
G
Yeah
this
week,
I'm
working
on
adding
pep
in
asia
pipeline
in
nightly
and
npr
will
will
be
ready
on
today
so
as
since,
in
working
progress
status,
but
I
think
it
will
finish
the
sewer
yeah.
That's
all.