►
From YouTube: Velero Community Meeting - Feb 7, 2023
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
And
pasting
the
link
to
the
agenda
in
the
chat
welcome
everybody.
This
is
the
Valero
community
meeting
for
February
7th
2023.
B
A
So
I
guess
we'll
start
with
status
updates.
First
on
the
list,
so
I've
been
working
over
the
last
week
on
the
implementation,
part
of
the
backup
controller
work
for
the
asynchronous
backup
item
action,
plugin
functionality.
A
This
is
probably
the
biggest
single
piece
of
work
from
all
this
from
the
new
feature,
because
it
involves
updating
the
backup
plugin
to
actually
check
the
item
operations
status
appropriately,
and
then
we
actually
need
a
whole
new
plugin.
That
will
monitor
those
in
the
background,
while
next
backups
are
running
I
hope
to
have
a
draft
PR
out
later
this
week.
The
only
thing
that
will
be
missing
at
that
point
is
the
draft.
A
Pr
is
I,
won't
be
tested
yet
and
then
going
to
modify
my
PR
for
the
Valero
plug-in
example
to
actually
have
a
sample
plugin
that
actually,
you
know,
Waits
and
produces
an
action
so
that
we
can
test
that
secondary
controller
and
with
the
integral
plug-in
scenario.
So
the
draft
PR
will
have
all
the
functionality
for
that
it
just
won't,
have
been
tested
yet
other
than
unit
tests
and
then
I'll
flip
that
over
to
you,
know,
ready
to
merge
review
later.
B
Yeah,
so
this
Poe
I
had
raised
a
couple
of
weeks
back.
We
discussed
this
briefly
in
the
previous
Community
hours
in
this
time
zone,
so
I
finalized
this
proposal
and
I
got
a
review
from
jianga
or
black
piglet
Alias,
so
I
I
don't
think
he
joined
this
particular
Community
out,
but
like
I'm,
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
what
is
comment.
Is
a
few
folks
had
any
maintenance
discussion
around
this?
Maybe
you
can
open
it
and
go
to
the
last
comment.
A
Yeah
I
don't
know
if
we
had
any
comments
on
I
mean
I,
I,
know,
Shivam
and
I.
Don't
think
we've
talked
about
this.
Are
you
on
now
I?
Don't
think
so?
Okay,
but
we'll
we'll
have
a
look
at
this.
I
may
have
some
some
feedback
on
here
as
well,
because
he's
done
a
lot
more
work
with
CSI
plugin
than
I
have
looking
at
the.
B
The
the
oh
you
can
just
go
to
the
second
last
comment
that
he
made
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
that.
A
few
folks,
just
just
above
the
one
I
put,
so
you
think
that
they
prefer
not
to
change
the
IDS.
I
didn't
really
get.
This
comment
fully.
I
put
the
question
in
case.
You
have
any
context
on
this.
Maybe
elevation
I
can
wait
for
him.
A
A
C
A
That
we
are
I
mean
there
will
be
Valero
crd
changes
in
111,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
much
to
change
this
is
versus
because
I
know,
for
example,
the
async
plugin
work
that
I'm
doing
good.
D
A
Right,
yeah
I,
don't
have
any
direct
Insight
on
that
particular
discussion.
I
think
that
would
be
worth
bringing
up,
I
mean
actually
I
would
I
would
say.
If
you
want
a
more
immediate
response,
you
might
ping
people
on
slack
just
because
the
the
Beijing
people
are
not
generally
attending
this
meeting.
A
It's
you
know
late
for
them,
but
you
know
again:
I
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
a
you
know,
major
release
like
that.
You
know
110
111.
Well,
that
didn't
have
crd
changes.
It's
it's
I
know
in
the
like
111.1.2.3,
on
the
Z
streams
we
try
to
minimize
I
prefer
not
to
have
any,
but
sometimes
there's
some
they're
having
minor
ones,
but
there
that's
an
area
where
I
know
we
do
want
to
minimize
CRT
changes.
A
A
B
A
Know
to
restore
in
a
newer
version,
so
there's
an
area
where
you
know,
if
you're
adding
a
field
to
make
sure
that
you
can
still
restore
something.
That's
you
know
doesn't
have
that
field,
those
kinds
of
things
and
like
I,
said
like
us
with
the
plugins,
if
possible,
you
know
yeah.
Obviously,
if
there's,
if
there's
a
feature
that
breaks
backwards
incompatibility,
we
need
to
document
that
thoroughly
and
all
that,
for
the
most
part,
the
Assumption
here
is
that
I
think
we're
doing
is
breaking
backwards.
Compatibility.
B
A
A
B
A
Again,
I
think
the
fact
that
the
Cod
has
changed
at
all
is
not
to
me
at
least
an
issue.
I
can't
speak
for
the
other
maintainers,
but
obviously,
if
there
are
major
changes
that
might
be
destabilizing,
that
might
be
a
concern
for
some
people,
and
so
you
know
we
can
have
that
discussion,
but.
E
A
B
D
A
Oh,
it's
just
another
point
about
that.
Yeah.
If
you're
talking
about
the
the
resource
filters,
you
can
kind
of
gave
an
example
with
Clarity
changes.
I
think
that's
actually
one
where
The
Seer
the
resource
filters
were.
The
design
is
getting
done,
but
I
don't
believe
the
implementation
of
that
is
actually
going
to
make
it
in
111
and
we
wanted
to
get
the
design
done
before
111,
but
I
I,
don't
think
the
actual
infotation
of
that
resource
filtering
is
going
to
make
it
into
111.
B
A
A
B
I
I
understand
that
but
I'm
just
we
were
asking
if
you
get
a
chance
to
review
like
at
face
value
the
pr
and
we
just.
A
A
And
Evan
had
a.
D
Yeah
hi
everybody
yeah,
just
so
very
quick.
You
know
item
there
just
like
following,
like
a
conversation
I
had
with
you
Scott,
like
I,
think
we're
gonna
put
together
design
proposal
to
the
extent
that
comes
the
new
include
exclude
resource
filters
to
just
work
with
field
support
selectors,
so
I
just
saw
like
that.
Getting
together
like
a
resource
filters
and
design
got
approved
this
morning,
so
I'll
open
a
separate
PR
for
it.
D
D
So
the
idea
of
refill
selectors
try
to
find
a
way
to
get
it
to
be
to
to
work
consistently
with
the
already
built-in
kubernetes
and
field
selectors
mechanism,
as
some
of
us
may
be
familiar
with,
because
so
yeah
I'll,
hopefully
get
a
PR
together.
Sometimes
some
description
for
the
design
proposal,
so.
D
A
And
one
other
comment
relating
to
that:
the
the
other,
the
English
resource
filters,
design,
PR
that
we've
been
reviewing
for
the
last
few
weeks,
I
think
that
will
emerge
soon.
I
know
we
had
the
meeting
last
week
where
I
think
we'd
pretty
much
resolved,
that
all
of
the
issues
with
that
particular
PR.
A
We
kind
of
agreed
on
I
I
approved
that
this
morning,
so
I
expect,
probably
tomorrow,
it'll
get
the
second
approval
and
merged,
so
your
PR
that'll
be
basically
as
I
understand
kind
of
building
on
top
of
that
and
kind
of
integrating.
In
with
that,
the
the
thing
that
you're,
basing
it
on
will
be
emerged
probably
by
tomorrow,
so.
A
Okay
and
then
Wes.
E
Yeah
I
I
think
there's
been
some
updates
to
that
pull
request
for
a
deprecation
policy.
I
just
don't
want
it
to
linger
too
long,
because
if
we
don't
have
one,
then
we're
just
gonna
have
some
really
old
code
and
Valero
for
too
long
yeah,
yeah.
A
I
think
I
think
that's
I
think
the
target
for
that
needs
to
be.
You
know
we
want
this
agreed
upon
and
merged
by
the
time.
111
comes
out,
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
deprecating
anything
in
111,
but
if
the,
if
the
policy
is
in
place
when
111
comes
out,
then
if
we'd,
then,
if
we
choose
to
deprecate
Something
in
112,
whether
it's
rustic
or
whether
it's
you
know
something
else,
then
you
know
we
can.
A
You
know
we
have
a
policy
that
says:
okay
if
we
deprecate
it
in
112.
That
means
here's.
When
it
goes
away
and
right
now
we
don't
have
that
so
I
think
we
ran
into
something
earlier
in
the
week,
even
where
you
know
something
was
deprecated
several
releases
ago
and
it's
still
there
because
we
didn't
have
a
policy
in
place,
so
it
was
never
removed.
A
So
yeah
and
I
I
I
agree
that
we
definitely
need
to
get
that
I'll.
Look
at
it
again
this
week
and
hopefully
we
can
get
the
rest
of
the
team
again.
I,
don't
expect
any
action
on
that
before
111,
but
I
agree
with
you
I
think
it
needs
to
be
emerged
and
basically
agreed
upon
as
this
is
our
policy
by
the
time
111
is
released.
So
that
way
we
have
the
freedom
to
deprecate
Something
in
112,
knowing
what
that
means.
Yeah.
E
Just
quick
question
just
to
see
is
any
anyone
planning
to
go
to
kubecon.
That's
on
the
call.
D
A
Yeah
and
I
was
talking
as
an
Orland.
I
was
talking
to
him
as
far
as
I
know,
he's
planning
on
going,
but
everything's
not
totally
finalized.
Yet
yeah.
C
A
E
Pretty
deep
I
don't
mean
to
put
you
on
the
spot
or
anything
but
I
I
know:
there's
been
some
discussion
about
development
for
the
rest
of
the
year.
You
know,
outside
of
this
upcoming
release,
potentially
around
multi-tenancy.
C
Yeah
I
had
kind
of
discussion
with
Jeff
part
of
that
also
so
what
we
kind
of,
in
my
personal
opinion,
in
a
way
like
yeah,
there
is
a
lot
of
cluster
Management
Solutions
which
sits
on
top
of
Alero
like
Advanced
Crystal
management.
The
VMware
has
something
and
then-
and
they
have
also
multi
tenants
implemented.
So
if
we
Implement
at
lower
level
and
at
that
level,
there
may
be
a
lot
of
design
conflicts,
so
so
as
I've
kind
of
pure
Valero
system.
C
Now
we
can
discuss
only
thing
you
have
to
consider
the
multiple
Solutions
using
it,
not
only
that
kind
of
one,
so
that
would
be
a
harder
problem
like
Veritas
is
using
tell
for
about
practices
things.
Everybody
has
something
on
that,
so
how
we
make
a
generic,
which
makes
all
the
layers-
and
that
would
be
much
bigger
decision,
so
needs
much
more
kind
of
a
lens
and
also-
and
we
have
kind
of
a
few
things
in
hand
which
we
have
to
kind
of
finish
before.
C
Even
we
should
touch
those
like
data
mover,
we
should
see
even
the
NFS
support
was
kind
of
Chef
was
going
to
think
it's
high
priority
from
his
book,
so
we
can
look
at
few
things
which
we
close
on
that
and
then
probably
touch.
If,
once
we
have
a
good
understanding
of
all
different
solutions
and
that
part.
C
C
Yeah,
that's
my
kind
of
very
high
level
good
feeling,
but
unless
we
kind
of
do
magic
and
then
finish
all
kind
of
incoming
thing
and
then
do
that,
then
that's
a
different
thing,
but
I
want
to
kind
of
make
sure
what
we
start.
We
kind
of
at
least
have
a
good
logical
conclusion.
It's
running
from
last
few
kind
of
quarters
and
some
more
things
we
can
do.
C
Enterprise
means
like
some
of
the
encryption
aspect
and
some
of
those
improving
the
scale
and
performance
and
how
we
can
kind
of
make
it
much
more
on
incremental
side
backupender
store.
So
those
are
the
also
few
critical
things
which
is
missing
and
secondly
like
when
we're
adding
a
support
for
multiple
these
products
and
providers.
So
we
have
not
looked
at
them
for
a
long
time.
What
are
the
enhancement
come
to
those
platforms
or
shall
we
look
at
something
in
the
plugins
to
kind
of
make
them
up
to
date
and
then
then
work?
C
Support
was
also
one
of
the
big
items
which
was
coming
up
in
the
multiple
discussions.
Both
the
sides
so
so
be
sure
to
look
at
some
areas
and
multi-tenancy
is,
is
getting
handled
in
our
higher
level
lower
level
we
can
see
if
we
can
do
more
lightweight,
providing
the
kubernetes
are
back
a
based
rather
than
doing
too
much
our
own
custom,
CRTs
sure.
E
Do
you
think
it'd
be
possible?
You
know
at
the
highest
level
not
giving
away
any
details
of
things,
but
could
we
open
up
a
hack
MD
where
things
can
be
discussed
at
kind
of
like
the
PM
feature,
level
and
priorities,
and
and
just
like
getting
thoughts
out
of
our
head
and
on
on
into
a
hack
MD
just
for
more
visibility.
C
We
can
do
that
as
well
as
I'm
open
to
open
a
GitHub
issue
and
then
discuss
more
openly
even
kind
of
everybody,
because
all
more
kind
of
views
will
come,
but
I'm
open
any
other
channel
if
it
makes
it
efficient.
But
one
thing
I'm
sure
that
we
can
put
more
better
roadmap
outside
as
a
items.
I
don't
want
to
kind
of
give
a
feel
like
this
is
all
driven
through
one
or
two
kind
of
idea.
Forum.
C
So
that's
the
reason
I,
like
it
GitHub
approach,
but
we
can
have
some
future
ideas
just
like
things
and
then
we
can
put
Big
Ticket
items.
Small
ticket
items
like.
D
C
Enhancement,
we
have
to
do
in
the
current
features.
What
we
offer,
what
the
next
big
feature
we
should
think
about
it.
So
we
can
have
two
of
these
lists
and
then
people
can
keep
adding
and
then
from
there.
We
can
still
create
a
GitHub
issue
and
then
discuss
on
those
front.
So
that's
the
kind
of
so
there
is
a
Wiki
roadmap
page.
Let
me
see,
if
you
do
a
link,
we
can
make
it
more
of
a
one
Centric
Wiki
for
roadmap,
where
we
say
idea,
collection,
so
look.
C
Request
on
existing
thing,
no
need
to
open
a
GitHub
issue
just
add
here
and
then,
as
we
little
bit
more
thought
process,
we
can
create
a
GitHub
issue
and
then
start
discussing.
So
that's
no
harm
in
doing
that.
But
let's
do
one
somewhere,
which
is
all
available
in
GitHub
to
all
people
to
see
and
then
contribute
to.
E
I
wonder
if
a
discussion
in
the
wiki
we
could
link
to
a
discussion.
You
know
ongoing
discussion.
C
You
have
to
kind
of
put
an
item
and
then
under
that
you
have
to
put
a
GitHub
link
there
to
discussing
it,
so
you
don't
have
to
kind
of
find
the
wiki
just
put
a
kind
of
a
heading,
say
I.
If
you
want
to
do
that,
there
are
one
or
two
line,
and
then
you
say,
as
we
have
kind
of
more
than
create
a
GitHub
vision
and
discuss
that
and
then
so
you
have
to
have.
You
can
go
one
page
where
you
can
say
what
the
current
feature
enhancement.
We
are
talking.
C
What
is
that
new
feature?
The
ticket
item?
You're
talking
and
then
that's
a
single
so
awesome,
but
you
still
have
the
GitHub
for
each
and
every
item
to
discuss
whatever
things
are
not
I'm,
okay
with
anything,
but
this
makes
more
kind
of
generic
sense
and
then
anything
efficiently
like
I'm
meeting
some
of
the
people
monthly,
and
also
see
that,
if
anything,
we
can
collaborate
more,
which
is
a
common
need,
so
it
will
be
kind
of
rather
than
doing
two
things
in
parallel.
E
C
We'll
achieve
much
faster
turnaround,
that's
the
way.
I
am
looking
things
and
when
I
discussed
motivation
with
the
Jeff,
he
was
kind
of
convinced
at
high
level.
Okay,
this
is
not
very
urgent.
There
are
few
urgent
things
we
should
move
on.
E
Okay,
I
think
I
totally
agree
with
everything
you
said.
I
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
something
outside
of
a
specified
release
of
where
the
possible
paths
that
we'd
like
to
take
the
project.
Is
that
something
that
you're
going
to
do
in
in
GitHub?
Or
do
you
want
me
to
open
up
a
Wiki.
A
I
guess
that's
a
no,
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
end
a
bit
early
since
we've
already
gone
through
all
the
agenda
items
so
have
a
great
week
and
next
week
oh
I,
think
tonight
there
is
a
meeting
scheduled
for
those
interested
in
the
data
mover
discussion.
A
It's
at
the
same
time,
I'm
gonna
clarify
offhand
whether
that
was
today.
I
know
we
talked
about
it
was
going
to
be
there
tomorrow,
I
think
that
is
scheduled
for
tonight
at
seven
Eastern.
A
Let
me
just
look
for
a
second
to
make
sure
yeah
I,
don't
know
if
you're
saying
the
right
thing
and
this
this
is
a
dedicated
meeting
to
discuss
the
Villa
built
in
data
movement.
Yes,
7
PM
eastern
time
tonight,
so
basically
the
same
time
that
the
Beijing
meeting
normally
happens
and
that's
to
discuss
the
Valero
data
mover
Upstream,
otherwise,
the
regular
meeting
next
week,
normal
time
again,
7
P.M,
Eastern,
Time,
8,
A.M
Beijing
time
on
Wednesday
so
have
a
great
week
and
let's
get
back
to
it,
bye.