►
From YouTube: 2020-06-17 JavaScript SIG
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
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
A
E
E
E
It's
really
just
a
work
in
progress
to
see
whether
you
guys
think
I'm
moving
in
the
right
direction
or
not
so
I
would
appreciate
it
if
people
to
take
a
look
at
this
and
just
from
like
a
design
and
functionality
standpoint
make
sure
that
it
makes
sense
that
the
readme
makes
sense
and
things
like
that
I
know.
A
couple
of
people
have
already
taken
a
look
at
it,
but
I
just
hoping
get
more
eyeballs
on
it
before
marking
it
as
ready
for
like
a
full
review.
E
One
PR
that
I
did
notice
has
been
around
for
a
while
is
Bart's
batch
observer,
PR
I
know
it's
really
big,
but
I
think
it
actually
still
has
no
reviews
so
I'm
reviewing
this
today
and
I
understand
that
it's
very
large,
but
I
would
appreciate
it.
If
people
could
please
take
a
look
at
it,
as
it
is
an
important
change
that
is
required
by
the
spec,
so
it
needs
to
be
merged
one
point
or
another
eventually,
so
please,
please
review
it.
E
C
C
E
E
I
also
noticed
this
review,
or
this
this
PR
that
Matt
made
has
been
around
for
a
while
now
about
a
week
and
doesn't
have
too
many
reviews.
So
I
need
to
look
at
this
one
today
also,
but
please
review
this
was
a
fairly
minor
spec
change
that
they
made
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
So
it
shouldn't
be
too
difficult
to
review
it
and
get
it
in
right.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
Matt,
but
it's
not
all
that
deep
of
a
change.
E
F
It
kind
of
it
adds
in
this
this
new
thing,
instrumentation
library,
which
ends
up
making
it
on
every
span
or
readable
span
and
metric
records.
So
it's
available
for
the
export
pipeline
and
there
is
like
a
spot
for
it
in
Oh
TLP,
so
I
just
made
sure
to
fill
that
in
there
were.
There
were
some
small
changes
to
the
collector
exporter
to
kind
of
update
that
format.
F
F
E
F
E
This
PR
I
wanted
to
talk
about
not
because
of
its
particular
importance
or
anything
like
that,
but
it's
been
around
for
almost
three
weeks
now.
It
only
has
it
has
two
approvals
and
obviously
you
know
a
third
person
we
made
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
talk
with
people
about
this.
Isn't
a
contrarian,
though,
and
I
wanted
to
talk
about
like
merge
guidelines
and
what
we
can
do
to
get
these
PRS
merged
a
little
bit
more
quickly
and
to
contribute,
though,
because
it
tends
to
get
a
little
bit
less
attention.
E
I
was
actually
going
to
come
up
with
a
like
a
merge
requirements
document
similar
to
what
may
are
made
for
the
main
repo
for
the
contribute
vote,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
okay
with
having
more
relaxed
requirements
in
the
contribute.
Bow,
you
know,
I
think
you
know
just
to
review
is
is
probably
enough
for
most
changes
in
contributing.
E
A
E
Okay,
I
can
I
can
work,
something
like
that
where
you
know
if
it's
maybe
two
reviews
from
contributors,
but
if
you
get
one
review
from
the
contributor
and
two
from
like
non
contributors
or
external
people,
then
then
that
would
suffice
also
or
something
on
that
I
have
to
think
about
it.
A
little
bit
more
but
I
think
something
like
that
could
work
just
to
get
the
pool
of
people
who
can
review
it
to
be
a
little
larger.
Is
that
what
you're
getting
at
yeah
I
mean.
E
I
I
don't
want
to
relax
it
too
much,
because
we
are
still
responsible
for
like
the
quality
of
this
code
at
the
end
and
because
it
is
like
the
plugins.
This
is
some
of
the
most
like
prone
to
failure
code
that
we
have,
because
we're
patching
modules
that
we
didn't
write
and
stuff
like
that.
I
think
it
depends
on
like
how
dangerous
each
given
change
is
obviously
but
yeah
point
well-taken.
Maybe.
A
E
Weird
requirements
so
generally,
we
have
no
no
changes,
requested
no
unresolved
conversations
and
for
Google's,
obviously
for
small
changes.
We
can.
We
can
merge
a
little
bit
more
quickly
and
you
know
if
the
mayor
and
I
agree
to
merge
something
or
to
not
merge
something.
You
know
anything
is,
you
know,
could
change,
but
for
the
most
part
for
Google's
is
what
we
look
for
then.
A
A
E
Think
yeah,
it
kind
of
depends
on
how,
because,
if
you're
changing
the
instrumentation
and
the
actual
caching
logic,
then
that's
a
little
bit
more
dangerous.
But
if
you're
just
changing
like
semantic
conventions
or
something
like
that.
Obviously
it's
a
little
bit
safer
to
change.
So
I'll
try
to
come
up
with
a
emerge
guideline
and
open
a
PR
for
that,
and
we
can
take
a
look
at
it
and
see
what
people
think
is
that,
okay,
that
wrong.
A
G
G
Yeah
I
was
trying
to
set
up
local
linting
in
the
in
that
rebeaud.
The
the
exporters,
repo
and
I
couldn't
get
it
to
match
the
linting
rules
that
I
see
on
like
circles,
so
yeah
I
when
I
submitted
PR,
they
seemed
like
a
bit
more
lacks.
Then
I
need
like
the
default
linting
rules.
I
get
set
up
with
like
GTS
I
was
wondering
if
there
was
any
way
to
like
access.
The
conflict
bar
that's
used
in
circle,
CI
a.
E
E
I
would
ask
mayor
about
that,
because
I
believe
he
primarily
controls
that
repository
okay,
mayor
kale,
but
if
you
are,
if
you
have
a
hard
time
or
you
can't
get
ahold
of
them
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
on
getter
I
do
have
some
experience
with
that
repo
and
I
can
try
to
help
you
out
a
little
bit.
All
right
sounds
good
thanks,
guys,
yeah,
no
problem.
E
I
So
I
added
that
line
I
just
had
a
couple
questions
on
what
it
would
look
like
to
propose
our
own
projects.
So
I
mentioned
this
in
the
getter
yesterday,
and
someone
suggested
that
I
propose
new
plugin
suggestions
to
the
contrary.
Po
I
was
only
if
you
could
clarify
what
the
difference
between
the
two
repos
would
be.
E
Yeah,
so
the
difference
is
a
little
bit
informal,
so
I
understand,
but
the
only
plugins
we
have
in
the
main
repo
right
now,
if
there's
only
a
two
or
three
of
them
and
they
are
like
high
value
plugins.
So
we
have
and
things
that
are
built
into
the
language
so
like
the
HTTP
and
HTTPS
module
are
built
right
into
the
node
runtime
xhr
is
built
into
the
browser
fetches
built
into
the
browser.
E
E
We
still
obviously
want
this
code
to
be
as
high
quality
as
possible
and
it's
only
unit
tested
and
for
the
most
part,
they're
all
written
by
the
same
people,
so
the
quality
and
style
is
very
similar,
but
as
we
added
a
large
number
of
plugins,
we
wanted
to
have
some
we're
sort
of
separate
to
store
them
so
that
we
can
keep
the
koribo
as
small
as
possible.
Does
that
make
sense?
E
I
E
B
E
C
E
You
just
have
to
make
sure
you
use
in
the
correct
context
manager
for
for
that,
but
I
don't
see
any
reason
not
to
include
that
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
and
if
you
want
to
tackle
that
I
fully
support
that
if
you're
looking
for
some
sort
of
like
you
know,
maybe
mentorship
was
the
wrong
word.
But
someone
to
help
you
through
the
process
I'm
more
than
willing
to
do
that.
So
you
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
on
beginner
and
yeah
I.
Think
that
that's
a
great
idea,
okay,.
I
E
If
you,
if
you
submit
an
issue,
I'll
assign
it
to
you
and
that
way
we
just
helps
us
track
what's
being
worked
on,
because
we
don't
want
anymore.
You
know
if
somebody
else
you
know
sees
that
there
is
no
issue
there
and
also
starts
working
and
no
duplicated
work
in
parallel.
That's
not
good!
So
just
to
have
something
signed
to
you
would
be
helpful.
Okay,.
H
Hi
I'm
another
Google,
intern
and
I'm,
also
kind
of
working
on
figuring
out
what
to
work
on
next.
One
idea
was
to
also
kind
of
think
of
a
different
plugin,
so
if
anyone
has
any
suggestions
for
things
that
they've
been
looking
for
or
if
there's
anything
that
kind
of
has
seen
demands
that
hasn't
come
to
light
yet
definitely
please
let
me
know
I'm
I'm,
not
sure
yeah.
E
E
If
you
search
this
plugin
request
label
they're
issues
that
people
have
created
this
one's
issues,
that
people
have
created
that
are
the
plugins
they're
looking
for
and
if
you
look
for
ones
that
are
not
assigned
those
are
ones
essentially
that
you
know
aren't
up
for
grabs.
This
Apollo
server
is
one
that
I've
had.
People
have
asked
me
about
this
multiple
times,
so,
if
you're,
looking
for
one
that
a
lot
of
people
have
asked
for
that
would
be
great
and
I.
E
H
Okay,
that
sounds
great
I'll.
Look
into
this
more
one.
Other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
ask
about
was
someone
suggest
is
possibly
a
good
project
would
be
implementing
these
pages
and
then
so
I,
actually
just
added
and
link
kind
of
a
design
doc
on
there.
I
was
wondering
if
that
might
be
another
good
place
to
get
involved.
Yeah.
E
I
mean
that's
a
great
way
to
get
involved.
I
think
that
that's
gonna
be
a
large
project,
but
if
you're
happy
with
that,
then
you
know
I
more
power
to
you.
I
added
this
link,
just
because
I
I
know
that
this
is
something
that
Sergey
who
used
to
be
at
Microsoft,
but
I
believe
is
now
actually
at
Google
added
this
recently,
and
it
was
a
feature
that
opens
senses
had
previously
as
still
I
guess.
E
One
thing
that
they
did
want
to
make
sure
is
that
if
we
implement
see
pages,
it
has
to
be
like
a
completely
separate
deliverable,
so
it
you
know,
can't
be
built
into
the
SDK.
Essentially
it
would
have
to
be
like
a
separate
add-on
package,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
may
need
to
make
some
SDK
changes
in
order
to
API.
Is
that
busy
pages
can
call
to
get
the
data
that.
B
E
B
E
H
E
But
I
think
they
want
to
implement
it
in
a
similar
way
across
all
languages
so
like
if
javascript
bingo
are
both
going
to
implement
it,
they
should
implement
it
in
a
way
that
if
one
user
is
using
javascript
and
go,
it
should
be
very
similar
and
familiar,
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So
from
that
perspective,
it
will
require
some
collaboration
with
the
other
languages.
But
as
far
as
I
know,
the
actual
deliverable
is
language.
H
J
E
E
This
would
be
a
good
place
to
start
or
something
like
that.
We
don't
start
implementing
in
our
saying,
usually
until
at
least
the
O
type
is
accepted,
because
until
it's
accepted,
there's
always
like
a
chance.
There's
some
pretty
wide
changes
and
we
don't
want
to
have
to
re-implement
things,
but
generally
we
can
start
working
once
the
attempt
is
accepted
and
they
start
working
on
the
specification.
E
J
B
E
E
E
F
F
Kind
of
the
argument
is
that
these
dots,
that
dot
notation
is
kind
of
like
a
map
in
disguise,
and
that
really
you
should
have
you
know
HTTP.
That
is
a
map,
and
then
the
map
would
have
a
URL
and
a
method
attribute
in
it
and
I
started
thinking
about
it's
kind
of
like
tracing
backends
and
an
export
and
ingest
of
all
these
things.
And
that's
where
I
started
to
kind
of
realize
that
most
tracing
backends
that
I'm
aware
of
need
these
as
key
value
pairs.
F
They
don't
really
support
this
nested
structure,
natively,
so
you're
gonna
have
to
flatten
that
data
structure
out
for
a
lot
of
these
things
like
Yeager's
that
can
so
you're
I
think
I
have
to
flatten
these
out
during
the
export
process
as
stuff
leaves
your
process
or
you're
going
to
have
to
do
it
on
ingest.
If
you're,
accepting
t.o.p
and
I
was
kind
of
asking
myself
like
what.
What
are
the
benefits
from
this
like?
Is
this
actually
helping
out
like
the
usability
of
of
open
telemetry
at
all
or.
E
E
So
we
just
let
you
talk
about
it
and
we
we
talked
about
it
after
a
little
bit
and
where
we
sort
of
came
down
on
this
was
we
do
not
necessarily
support
arbitrarily
nested
Maps,
but
one
thing
that
could
be
useful
is
to
have
just
a
single
level.
So
if
you
have
like
a
name
HTTP
headers
and
then
you
have
like
a
single
key
value
pair,
that
cannot
be
arbitrarily
nested.
E
E
That's
required
for
that,
and-
and
things
like
that
and
as
you
brought
up
in
this,
the
spec
state
meeting
being
able
to
allocate
those
strings
once
and
then
use
them
over
and
over
during
runtime
is
helpful
for
performance
reasons
and
actually
for
for
us,
we
use
a
pretty
tightly
packed
binary
protocol.
So
the
strings
need
to
be
well
known
on
both
ends.
E
E
F
I
think
that's
fine,
I
think
that
was
like
my
main
call
to
action
was
like
see
if
this
is
a
good
idea
before
we
just
do
it,
because
it's
like
the
things
things
that
I
was
saying:
it's
like.
Definitely
you
can
get
by
making
the
strings
ahead
of
time.
You
can
have
zero
runtime
allocations.
The
other
thing
that
kind
of
occurred
to
me
is
that
you
also
only
have
one
map
insertion
when
you
do
that.
As
you
start
nesting,
it's
like
you
have.
F
E
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
more
or
less
agree
with
with
what
you
brought
up
at
the
spec
yesterday
and
your
comment
on
that
issue.
It
all
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
that
said,
I'm,
not
really
the
person
who's
dealing
with
that
inside
dynaTrace
right
now,
so
I'm
not
entirely
sure
what
our
like
official
stance
on
that
is
or
will
be
if
you're
interested
I
can
try
to
find
out
anyway.
You
know
yeah.
F
One
thing
I
was
thinking
is
like,
depending
on
just
hugs,
goes
like
I,
don't
know
if
any
like
projects
are
set
up
to
do
some
kind
of
like
span
a
student
put
tests
or
something
something
along
those
lines.
But
this
one
could
be
one
way
for
like
validating.
F
E
Know
that
the
Technical
Committee
wants
and
that's
part
of
like
their
GA
requirements
as
they
have
like
load
testing,
which
I
assume
means
comparing
and
untraced
application
to
the
traced
version
to
seem
a
lot
of
difference.
Yeah
I
assume
that's
what
they
actually
really
care
about,
and
this
is
something
that
would
definitely
come
up
there.
If
we
find
that
the
load
testing
is
slow-
and
you
know
that's
the
type
of
optimization
I'm
sure
they
would
be
looking
to
make.
F
Yeah
testing
is
a
whole
nother
worms
and
often
when
you
have
a
an
actual
application
and
you're
trying
to
test
the
performance
impact
of
changes
of
kind
of
a
part
of
that
application.
It
can
be
hard
because
there
are
a
lot
of
variables,
especially
if
your
application
is
do
we
got
io
and
network
calls.
F
So,
like
I,
don't
know,
regressions
can
hide
in
the
noise
if
they're,
small
enough
I
guess,
whereas,
like
a
straight-up
like
spam,
throughput
test
like
how
many
spans
can
I
create
you
know
in
in
ten
seconds,
is
a
pretty
controlled
experiment
and
you
can
kind
of
see
the
impact
of
your
tracer
changes,
although
it
might
kind
of
magnify
them
in
ways
that
make
changes,
look
perhaps
a
little
worse
than
they
could
be.
But
do
you
have
that
in
the
JavaScript.
E
F
E
E
E
F
No
I'm,
not
looking
for
resolution
at
all
I
was
just
looking
to
kind
of
get
this
on
people's
radar
and
get
them
thinking
about
it.
Like
I,
don't
know
like
I'm,
always
game
yeah
I'm
always
ready
to
be
convinced
that
I'm
wrong.
So
like
I'm,
not
at
all
positive
that
the
things
that
I'm
saying
are
yeah
and
other
I
think
that
or
the
way
things
are
gonna
go
but
like
having
the
discussion.
I
think
is
important.
F
So
it's
a
proposal,
but
like
these
changes,
this
went
into
the
collectors.
They
were
added
to
kind
of
ot
LP
and
merge
at
the
PR.
So
I
think
that's
the
things.
Well,
this
ship
hasn't
actually
sailed.
I,
don't
think
I
think
like
capability
is
a
no
TLP,
so
like
I
think,
there's
still
needs
to
be
some
bias,
buy-in
and
consensus
from
the
spec
that
we
would
actually
use
it.
E
F
B
B
E
I'm
not
overly
familiar
with
the
with
the
details
are
too
many
proprietary
trading
backends,
but
I
was
alright.
I
was
aware
that
the
GCP
one
didn't
support
it
and
I
believe
X
ray
also
does
not
I'm
not
familiar
with
a
hazard,
but
these
are
like
larger
back-end
perspectives.
I
think
that
the
supposition
is
generally
correct.
I.
B
Do
think
speaking
period
GCP
incident,
like
my
plague,
the
prot,
my
product
manager
and
that
I,
if
there's
like,
if
this
is
something
that's
being
asked
for,
and
people
would
actually
like
surfaced
in
the
implementation
there's.
It's
definitely
an
interesting
conversations
that
have,
but
it
would
be
like
a
expanding
conversation
if
this
is
just
something
to
put
in
the
spec,
so
that
it's
easier
for
users
to
send
a
map
and
it
gets
flattened
than
the
exporter
and
that's
a
different
conversation.
Yeah.