►
From YouTube: Velero Community Meeting - September 28, 2022
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,
hello,
everyone:
this
is
Valero
community
meeting
and
first,
let's
do
some
status
update
and
let's
begin
from
machine
case.
B
A
Okay,
thanks
and
me.
C
First,
the
Valero
one
line
two
is
released.
Second
I'm
doing
the
Valero
performance
test,
copia
and
rustic
comparison
test
with
many
folks
on
the
valves.
The
candy
fires
are
of
us.
The
derogatory
derogatories
are
both
situation.
Yeah.
That
is
far
on
my
side.
A
Okay,
thanks
and
myself
is
working
on
the
PVB
and
PBR
refactor
and,
for
example,
some
command
parameters
that
is
named
with
radic
and
should
be
renamed
and
the
demon
set
itself
will
be
renamed
to
node
it
under
the
namespace.
D
The
pr
for
supporting
post
schedule
is
merged
and
the
second
outcome
is
I'm.
Reviewing
the
PR
for
error
plugin.
This
PR
try
to
use
the
service
principle
rather
than
the
story
count
to
to
the
authentication
and
authorization.
D
E
Yeah
I've
been
reviewing
some
PRC
and
the
university
giving
some
issues
targeting
when
10
FC
related
to
AWS
plugin.
There's
one
tricky
thing
that
the
snapshot
of
AWS
makes
the
limit.
In
some
certain
cases,
I
I
spend
a
fair
amount
of
time
trying
to
reproduce
but
didn't
have
a
lot
so
I
don't
need
to
complete
continue
investigating
that
the
other
one
related
to
PMS,
IDE
I,
think
is
probably
a
fixed
person.
E
A
C
C
F
F
F
F
F
Yeah
it
is
completed,
there
was
a
little
differences
between
the
aristica
and
The
copier.
So
for
the
service
we
can,
we
I
can
show
you
that,
yes,
the
pot
of
volume
backups
theories
that
we
it
shows,
we
use
the
Cobell
to
do
the
volume
backup
and
another
30.
That
is
the
Becca
Repository
yeah
here
it
is
that
shows
the
current
backup
repository
as
copying.
F
F
F
C
A
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
discussion:
topics
from
Daniel
So
Daniel.
Please.
B
A
E
So
in
the
in
the
future
mentioned
that
because
csir
plugin
is
a
backup
button,
action
plugin
and
it
will
create
the
CSI
snapshot,
volume,
snapshot,
content,
Etc
and
add
them
to
the
other
additional
items
for
the
backup.
But
in
a
corner
case,
when
user
create
a
backup
using
some
include
exclude
filters
or
or
other
selectors,
and
the
additional
items
do
not
but
satisfy
those
filters
and
that's
what
we
filtered
out
and
which
will
leave
the
backup
in
the
incomplete
State.
E
At
the
same
time,
in
an
internal
product
we
are
working
on.
We
also
see
the
similar
issue
which,
where
we
try
to
use
Valero
to
back
up
a
workflow
that
is
heavily
based
on
CRS
and
when
user
create
a
CR.
The
controller
will
create
a
lot
of
random
resources
here
and
there
in
different
namespaces.
It's
not
realistic
to
let
users
to
label
each
of
the
items
and
to
make
sure
they
are
backed
up
successfully.
So
we
create
a
custom
plugin.
E
So
we
have
the
same
issues
if
those
additional
plug
resources
do
not
meet
the
requirement
of
the
filters
and
the
backup
will
be
incomplete,
so
I
think
it
may
be
easier
that
we
establish
a
simple
contract
to
allow
the
backup
item
action,
plugin
developer,
to
tell
Valero
these
are
the
additional
items?
Do
not
exclude
them
in
your
backup,
they
must
have
so
I
have
a
POC
here
and
things
simple
work.
E
It's
very
simple
in
the
back
item
was
a
functioning
by
the
way
yeah
in
the
item
back
Hopper
when
excluding
a
vehicle
button
action
here.
E
You
get
the
updated
item
and
additional
items,
and
in
this
for
Loop
it
will
attack
the
annotation
of
the
return
updated
item.
So
if
the
backup
item
action
added,
it
must
include
item
annotation
like
this
back
up.
Down
Below
Mass
include
additional
items.
If
this
annotation
is
added
to
this
object
by
the
backup
button
action
plugin,
the
Valero
backup
will
skip
this
Extrusion
check
so
that
the
additional
items
written
by
the
backup
item
action
will
be
included
in
the
backup,
disregarding
the
include
exclude
filters.
E
So
in
that
way
we
can
make
sure
the
backup
is
complete.
I
discussed
this
with
Scott
on
slack
direct
messages
and
draft
spr
I.
Think
after
this
meeting
I'll
ask
shubhanska
take
another
look
and
my
goal
is
to
yeah.
B
So
is
this
a
behavior
change
like
in
the
existing
plugins.
E
No
because
existing
plugin
will
not
add
this
annotation,
so
I
think
we
are
relatively
safe
here.
This
is
additional
incremental
change
only
for
the
plugin
that
is
adding
this
annotation
to
the
you
know,
input
item.
E
A
backup
item
action
plugin.
Currently,
there
is
not
any
release
back
about
American
product
in
doing
this
I'm
adding
this,
because
we
may
need
it
in
an
internal
product
where
we
will
create
a
custom
plugin
that
we'll
add
this
annotation,
so
that
user
will
backup
the
CR
only,
but
Valero
will
trigger
that
back
about
the
macron
plugin
back
up
a
lot
of
other
resources.
E
That's
one
use
case,
the
other
one,
maybe
in
future
CSI
plugin,
because
currently
subang
is
trying
to
somehow
add
the
label
or
tweak
the
attribute
of
these
CSI
resources
created
by
the
plugin
to
make
sure
they
are
included
in
a
backup
when
user
create
any
filters
when
creating.
B
A
project
you
know
so
I'm
thinking
right
so
so
inclusion
is
fine
because
we
don't
know
what
else
to
include,
but
if
customer
explicitly
said
exclude
a
resource
should
we
still
include.
E
It
currently
the
idea
is,
we
should
because
we
don't
want
a
customer,
because
if
the
the
assumption
is
like
this,
when
the
plugin
developer
says
You
must
include
this
additional
item.
There's
a
reason
for
that,
because
without
these
items
in
this
backup
the
restore
will
fail
right.
This
is
the
contrast,
or
this
is
the
Assumption
here
we
we
give
a
plugin
developer
the
way
to
make
sure
the
additional
plugin
are
included
in
the
backup
such
that
the
backup
will
be
successfully
restored.
E
That's
the
idea
under
local,
so
so
I
don't
think
we
I
Scott
mentioned
that
we
may
Add
a
switch
in
the
backup
CR
so
that
even
this
annotation
is
added.
We
can
still
skip
I
mean
we
can
still
apply
those
filters,
but
I'm
not
sure.
If
the
right
thing
we
can
continue
the
discussion,
but
in
my
opinion,
if
the
battle
migrants
say
Hey,
you
must
include
this
I
I.
E
B
Yeah
no
I
mean
yeah.
What
do
you
think
makes
sense
so
include.
Definitely
here
is
the
exclude
part
I,
don't
know
because
user
is
saying:
I
don't
want
this
resource
to
be
backed
up,
and
then
we,
the
resource,
shows
up,
but
yeah
I
mean
it
depends
on
the
use
case.
E
Yeah
I
think
we
may
add
some
log
and
somehow
poverty
document
document
this
implementation
and
also
add
a
xpc,
a
guideline
to
the
plugin
developers
that
yeah
you
should
use
this
annotation
only
in
the
case
when
this
is
necessary,
somehow
yeah,
but
this
is
a
draft
of
plug-in.
So
if
you
have
any
concern,
please
feel
free
to
add
any
comment
here:
I'll,
since
they
are
now
they're
helping
shoe
balance
called
outlying
about
this.
E
Well,
we
will
try
to
have
it
in
a
path
of
1.9,
because
this
is
this
is
not
very
conventional,
but
we
are
really
on
a
high
schedule
for
the
internal
products
so
I
we
really
don't
have
to
handle
it
for
the
one
time.
I.
Think
in
this
does
not
introduce
any
break
change.
We
are
probably
okay.
A
Okay
Daniel
so
this,
so
the
joint
attention
is
added
by
the
plugin
right.
So
yes,
do
we
need
to
delete
it
after
the
backup
or
we
keep
it
there.
E
A
Then
I
think
we
have
done
for
all
the
discussions.
So
do
we
have
any
other
things
or
any
of
any
other
update
to
make
today.
A
Okay,
if,
if
not
I,
think
we
can
start
solve
the
meeting
here
today
earlier
and
we
can
continue
any
discussion
later
offline
and
also
we
can
review
The
copier
demo
from
the
record.