►
From YouTube: 2022-04-06 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).
B
Yeah
hi
thomas
on.
B
B
B
D
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
country
brepo
like
for
the
component
that
we
are
working
on.
I
need
pratish
also
to
be
an
approver
so
that
I
don't
have
to
bother
you
multiple
times
to
make.
Those,
so
can
can,
I
think,
but
has
already
raised
one
ticket
for
getting
the
approval,
so
he
needs
approver
for
that
sponsors.
For
that
for
being
a
member
of
opens
for
the
cnc.
B
Yeah,
I
mean
that's
fair
enough.
I
think
the
I
mean
I
can
see
hassan
concern.
The
only
point
is
like
if,
without
any
substantial
contribution
to
any
of
the
open,
telemetry
sig
projects,
I
mean,
if
somebody
approves
it,
I
think
there
may
be
some
questions
coming
up
from
the
technical
or
the
governance
committee.
B
So
I
think
that's
that's
probably
the
concern
which
I
can
see
asana
is
raising.
So
I
think
it's
good
to
see
what
contribution
he
has
done
as
of
now.
I
think
it
should
be
okay,
even
if
it's
a
content
breakfast,
because
that
is
also
something
which
is
part
of
the
open,
telemetry
org,
but
I
think
it
would
be
weird
to
see
the
amount
of
contribution
and
then
we
can
definitely
see
I
did
approve
it.
D
D
Yeah
by
that
time,
yeah
there
are
some
development
activities
which
we'll
be
doing
so,
maybe
one
or
two
one
or
two
weeks
later.
Maybe
we'll
have
more
contribution
from
practitioner
the
cpp
country,
repo
and
then
maybe
we
can
take
this
task
again.
B
Yeah
and
the
division,
thank
you
feel
free
to
just,
I
think,
any
or
any
of
us.
If
you
need
any
approval,
I
think
that
should
not
be
a
problem.
I
think
we
can
do
it
till
till
practice
is
not
as
a
one
of
the
approvers.
B
B
B
Yeah
thanks
and
you
want
to
discuss
anything
on
the
the
asynchronous
and
concurrent
processor
work
which
you
were
doing.
I
mean
something.
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
have
raised
the
peers
and
incorporated
the
review
comments
provided
by
owen.
So.
B
B
B
I
think
this
looks
a
good
good
to
start
with.
My
only
concern
here
is,
I
think,
even
I
remember
I
think
we
only
told
to
add
a
feature
flag
and
I
now
see
lots
of
if
depths
coming
in
the
code,
which
is
which
is
fine,
because
I
think
we
want
to
really
to
segregate
the
asynchronous
part
and
it
should
not
affect
the
existing
functionality.
B
B
Yeah
asynchronous
batch
processor,
it
may
have
some
duplicate
code
if
we
want
to
have
move
that
in
a
common
utility
function
or
something
that
should
be
totally
fine,
but
if,
if
we
can
do
that
and
that
ensure
that
it
would,
that
will
provide
us
a
better,
maintain
maintainability
of
the
existing
code.
Also,
that
is
for
me.
I
just
had
a
thought
that
probably,
if
we
can
do,
we
can
still
have
the
feature
flag
and
that
asynchronous
batch
processor
would
be
under
feature
flag.
B
D
Right
that
is
a
good
point,
actually
yeah
and
and
one
more
thing,
if
we
do
this
on,
we
should
do
it
because
batch
processor
internally
uses
all
those
exporters
and
we
have
if
they
have
in
those
exporters,
also
specifically
for
async
part,
and
it
has
gone
to
till
stdp
client.
D
Processor,
what
what
is
your
thought
on
those
macros
that
we
have
added
in
those
exporters
as
well,
that
will
still
remain
intact.
Only
just
the
processor
will
get
separated
out.
B
D
Yeah
so
before
this,
the
initial
initial
pr
which
owen
has
merged.
So
on
top
of
that,
I
me
I
had
added
this
macro,
and
this
has
involved
me
to
also
add
add
macro
in
the
exporters
which
was
fine,
but
also
in
the
http
client.
B
Yeah,
I'm
just
thinking
in
terms
of
maintenance,
even
if
to
start
for,
even
even
if
you
can
separate
it
out
in
processor.
Let
let
me
probably
have
a
more
thorough
review
on
the
exporter
at
what
level
we
are
put.
We
have
those
flags
if
it
is
possible
to
segregate
their
let's-
probably
let's,
let's,
let's
even
take
make
up
yeah.
D
I
I
agree
with
that.
Actually,
that
would
should
be
we
that
will
be
hell.
That
will
help
us
to
maintain
this
because
will
not
hamper
the
existing
synchronous
call.
Now,
even
if
we
do
some
kind
of
changes,
we
have
to
always
remember
that
this
has
to
be
within
the
flag
exactly
and
that,
and
we
might
miss
some
time
and
that
might
cause
some
other
issues.
B
Let's
do
it
for
processor
to
start
with,
I
mean
I
think
we
can
do
both
these
things
separately.
When
we
can
see
in
exporter,
then
afterwards
I
mean
not
immediately,
but
let's
start
with
the
processor
and
it's
okay
to
have
duplicate
code
to
some
extent,
even
if
we
have
to
do
it,
if
we
cannot
really
have
a
common
common
for
create
a
common
function.
Out
of
that,
it's
totally
fine
good
to
have
some
some.
B
B
I
am
still
not
very
sure
whether
we
need
these
changes
for
multiple
handle
and
curl,
but
I
think
please
I
mean
you
also
review
this
part.
I
think
you
have
better
understanding
of
the
flow
with
this
async
right
now,
so
whether
we
really
need
it
even
if
we
so
we
don't
have
a
separate
threads
invoked
from
processor
altogether
right
processor,
we
will
just
make
a
call
from
the
background
thread
right.
D
B
B
D
C
B
Then
we
don't
need
this
multiple
handles
right,
curl
multi
handle,
I'm
just
thinking
that
how
is
this
coming
into
the
picture?
In
that
case,
if
we
have
separate
threads
running
for
each
of
those
requests,
each
is
making
each
of
those
requests
are
making
their
own
curl
socket.
Call
then
do
we
really
need
this
change,
but
just
go
through
that
I
mean
that's
my
initial
thoughts.
Probably
it's
good
to
review
it
right.
E
Sure
I
have
a
question
on
the
I
think
thread
is
red
pool.
I
think,
as
we
are
all
our
sdk
is
usually
ingested
as
a
library
right
and
the
user
application
usually
has
its
own
thread
for
something
like
that.
So
we
have
separate
one
problem
provided
by
qr
or
our
would
that
interfere
with
the
user's
thread
for.
B
So
it
I
mean
I'm
just
thinking
I
mean
whether
you're
saying
if
we
can
utilize
the
thread
pool
which
the
application
level
has
created.
If
we
can
utilize
that
I
mean,
even
if
we
don't
utilize
it,
I
don't
see
it
should.
A
B
D
B
B
B
D
Yes,
so
should
should
I
I
should
be
continuing
on
the
existing
feature.
Branch
right.
B
D
Yeah,
in
that
case,
I
I
would
because
that
will
be
two
huge
changes,
so
maybe
we
should
do
some
of
the
reviews
like
which
has
been
done
till
now,
and
that
would
be
helpful.
Even
owens
changes
also
are
there,
so
we
should
review
all
of
them
like
whenever
we
get
time
so
that
the
burden
doesn't
comes
when
the
main
feature
branch
gets
merged.
At
that
moment,
we'll
see
it's
lots
of
changes,
so
it
will
be
difficult
to
review.
At
that
moment.
I.
C
B
B
D
Time
in
that
case,
yeah
sure
so
in
this,
in
this
prs
suggested
by
owen,
I
I
had
to
add
this
asynchronous
flag
in
in
the
ci,
so
he
suggested
me
to
add
it
to
all
the
most
of
the
jobs.
D
D
B
Actually,
I
was
thinking
to
just
have
it
create
a
separate
job
only
for
async
and,
let's
not,
let's
not
touch
any
of
the
existing
other
jobs.
For
this.
D
But
yeah
I
did
that
initially,
but
I
I
got
the
comment
that
we
should
add
it
for
all
of
them.
Accepting
except
some
of
them
like
most
of
them,
should
be
added.
So
I
did
that,
but
I
got
that
thinking
like.
Should
we
do
this?
First
of
all,
for
all
of
them.
B
I
mean
that's
totally
fine,
even
even
if
we
have
it
for
all
of
them.
That
will
just
increase
the
build
time
a
bit.
I
don't
think
it
is
going
to
affect
anything
else.
Apart
from
that,
because
right
now
we
do
build
metrics
and
locks,
even
though
they
have
preview
for
in
all
the
cases
we
are
building
that.
A
B
D
Yeah,
this
was
the
command.
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
there's
a
valid
command.
I
mean
that
will
also
going
to
test
the
benchmark,
address
sanitizer
and
threat
sanitizer
revenue
once
we
enable
it
that
will
that
will
automatically
test
all
those
all
this
functionality.
D
Yeah
yeah
anyway,
I
have
done
this,
so
this
should
keep
the.
B
B
B
B
B
Thanks
apart
from
that,
I
think
there
is
another
pr
which
was
raised
in
the
community
for
instrumentation
stability
of
the
of
all
this
sick.
Let
me
try
to
open
that.
I
think.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
we
discussed
about
this
in
last
meeting,
probably
maintaining
a
table
with
the
status
of
the
these
instrumentation
or
the
components
whether
they
are
stable.
It
defines
what
what
a
stable
instrumentation
means,
what
an
unstable
instrumentation
means
so
david,
I
think,
probably
we
may
have
to
in
the
readme.
We
may
have
to
put
one
table
which
says
that,
for
all
the
components
which
are
there
in
the
content
paper,
what
the
current
status
are
this
table
or
are
they
unstable?
B
So
if
they
are
stable,
are
they
using
the
same
semantic
conventions
which
are
used
which
are
which
are
as
defined
in
the
specification,
so
like
specification,
define
the
semantic
conventions
of
how
the
http
entities
should
look
like
what
should
be
their
naming.
B
B
B
B
I'll.
Do
that
I'll
do
I'll
create
this.
We
mystique
do
that
afterwards,
okay,
yeah
and
matrix
implementation
so
raise
appear
here,
so
I
think
there
was
syncmatrix
it.
This
was
completed
thanks
for
the
review
to
tom
and
his
son
heading
distance.
B
B
The
magic
exporter,
I
think
we
have
to
modify
sunrise
with.
B
Yeah
just
go
through
this.
I
think
I
I
did
some
changes
in
the
last
year
for
instrumentation
library
and
resources
so
that
that
basically
it's
very
aligned
to
the
data
model
for
otlp
matrix
exporter.
The
way
the
way
data
should
look
like
for
otp
matrix
exporter.
I
just
kept
the
same
structure
for
our
matrix
data,
I'm
including
the
instrumentation
library,
instrumentation
information
and
the
resources.
A
B
B
B
B
Why
we
missed
a
milestone
again
yeah
and
this
one
having
that
sonic?
I
can
take
it
take
this
over
right,
because
these
would
be
totally
coupled
with
each
other.
I
mean
I
don't
see
these
as
separate
community
when
delta.
How
do
you
want
to
me
to
approach
I
mean?
Should
I
should
I
start
start
on
this.
A
B
So
so
primitive,
I
think
you
can
take.
B
Yeah
I
can
take
this
asynchronous
part
and
then
I
think
you
can
take
the
primitives
exporter
that
I
just
had
some.
I
think
I
just
could
discuss
with
you
offline.
I
just
had
some
timeline
in
my
mind
because
I
wanted
to
have
a
demo
internally.
As
I
told
you
so
probably
I
think,
even
if
you
can
spend
some
time
even
every
night,
it's
not
very
urgent,
but
I
think,
even
if
couple
of
weeks
or
something
if
we
can
have
something
that
will
happen.
B
B
B
So
thanks
thanks
swan
for
taking
taking
that,
I
think
that's
would
be
definitely
good
and
that
that
would
be
a
good
showcase.
We
don't
have
any
that
that
that,
because
that
really
I
mean
we
can,
we
can
showcase
that
as
an
end-to-end.
B
B
I
haven't
added
that
in
the
in
the
milestone,
because
the
milestone
was
specifically
for
sdk.
B
B
B
B
B
A
So
the
java
team,
they
changed,
their
async
storage,
now
they're
using
callback
registration
class,
okay.
B
Okay,
so
you
have
you,
you
have
something
you'll
be
dating.
I.
B
B
Okay,
let
me
see
if
I
can,
or
if
you
want
I
mean
if,
if,
if
it
is,
I
mean
if
it
won't
be
a
more
of
a
rework
for
me,
I
mean
I
can
I
can
tell
I
can
just
start
looking
into
the
java
implementation.
That's
totally
fine!
I
mean,
if
you
feel
that
it
I
mean
I
mean
I
just
don't
want
that.
If
you
have
done
some
work
and
that
gets
wasted,
I
mean
I
don't
want
that.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
just
just
just
send
me
the
java
relevant
parts
of
java
what
they
are
doing.
I
think-
and
I
think
even
that's
fine,
even
if
we
don't
support
multiple
instruments
with
that
aggregation
right.
That
was
the
issue
right.
Multiple
instruments,
configured
multiple
views,
yeah,
so
I
mean
I'm
totally
fine.
If
we
implement
that,
unless
there
is
a
design,
let
me
see
java
part,
I
mean
if
it's
a
bigger
design
chain-
let's,
let's,
let's
do
it
in
their
way.
Only.
B
Okay,
thanks
and
here
tom
for
one
dot
2.1,
I
think
it's
probably
1.3.0,
I'm
not
sure
which
one
it
would
be.
E
B
So
totally
fine,
just
you
can
take
a
call
whether
it's
you
want
to
do
some
having
release
based
on
what
changes
we
have
as
of
now.
Okay,
let's
quickly
see
if.
B
E
B
B
B
Yeah,
I
mean
it
depends
basically
if
they
use
just
fine
package
in
cmake.
They
everything
is
fine,
because
that
will
include
everything
automatically,
but
if
they
specif
they
are
using
their
own
build
system,
then
they
are
taking
all
those
libraries
building
all
those
libraries
and
linking
it
manually,
adding
the
link
the
link,
flags,
compiler
flags
and
doing
it,
then
that's
a
breaking
change
for
them.
B
E
B
B
E
B
B
B
B
E
Okay,
I
think
depends
on
the
current
milestone.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
do
a
release
without
existing
changes.
This
week
I
will
prepare
the
vr.
B
Yes,
I
think
next
next
next
release
so
you're
saying
that
we'll
have
one
release
this
week.
Yes
and
then,
then,
next
month,
release
should
have
matrix.
I
think
it
should
have
with
primitives
exporter
and
probably
n2
and
asynchronous
and
technologies
working.
So
I
think
we
should
have
a
more
complete
release
for
matrix
next
month.
B
B
Okay
for
benchmark,
as
you
know,
no
further
update,
I
I
had
was
planning
to
see
how
we
can
have
hosted
runners,
so
I
mean
internally.
I
do
I
am
planning
to
have.
I
mean
I
do
have
a
mac
mini
at
my
desk
right
now
in
my
office
and
I'm
planning
to
use
that
for
our
ci
pipeline
for
our
internal
telemetry
library
and
I'm
just
thinking
if
we
can
use
that
also
for
open
telemetry.
B
So
so
I'm
going
to
start
with.
I
think
I'm
going
to
use
that
I'm
going
to
run
some
our
ci
task
for
our
internal
telemetry
on
that
mac,
many
box,
which
is
there
on
my
table
right
now
and
then
probably
I
can
I'll
see
if
we
can
use
it
for
the
benchmarking
and
if
that
gives
us
more
consistent
benchmark
results.
A
B
Yeah
sorry,
yeah
yeah,
it's
an
old
one,
intel.
Sorry,
it's
a
intel
one
yeah!
Then
you
know
it's,
it's
not
the
the
series
of
apple
processor
here,
but
I
think
that
will
take
some
time
because
I
think
my
initials
bandwidth
will
go
in
setting
up
the
internal
pipeline
for
our
telemetry
and
then
probably
I'll.
Take
I'll
create
it
for
this
use
it
for
this
and
yeah.
B
And
apart
from
that
yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
next
three
meetings
so
I'll
be
working,
so
I
won't
be
in
the
u.s
time
zone
I'll
be
working
from
india
for
next
three
months
next,
three
weeks
so
and
I
won't
be
able
to
attend
the
meeting
on
monday,
one,
the
monday
meeting,
which
we
have
at
1
pm
time.
B
So
I
think
I'll,
probably
tom
and
assan,
I
think
I'll
leave
it
to
you
guys
to
to
drive
that
meeting.
Okay
yeah,
I
don't
even
want
to
change
the
time,
because
we
had
lots
of
changes
in
the
timing
of
the
meeting.
I
don't
don't
want
the
temporary.
We
should
gain
the
time
to
accommodate
something,
so
I
think
I'll
be
so
just
let
me
open
the
calendar
so
next
week
I
won't
be
able
to
join
the
monday
meeting
and
there
were
two
meetings
I
won't
be
able
to
join
on
on
11th
and
on
25th.
E
Okay,
yeah
sounds
good
unless
next
monday,
we
may
don't
have
so
much
update
and
we
only
have
three
or
two
or
three
days
left
in
this
week.
B
Yeah
anyway,
it's
just
three
days,
so
I
think
probably
make
a
call.
I
think
if
you
always
join-
and
just
probably
it's
up
to
you
how
you
want
to
do
it,
it's
good
to
actually,
I
think
I'll
I'll
say
good
to
join,
because
sometimes
we
do
get
people
from
outside.
If
somebody
joins
from
the
community
and
they
see
nobody,
is
there.
B
B
B
B
Yeah,
if
not,
I
think
we
are
good
thanks
for
joining
good.