►
From YouTube: 2020-09-25 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).
A
A
A
Oh
okay,
let
me
start
sharing
some
stuff,
I'm
expecting
carlos
to
join
as
well
shortly.
A
It
but
I
got
the
search
pulled
up
and
it
was
blank.
I
was
like,
oh
what
oh
they're
all
done.
A
Three
were
in
progress
with
open
pr's
and
they
closed
hey
carlos.
How
you
doing.
G
Yes,
but
no
yes,
but
no
okay!
Yes,
we
have
a
few
follow-ups
that
are
the
factor
required,
but
these
small
things,
the
other
important
part,
is
there.
Has
there
there
have
been
a
few
issues
and
prs
that
we
have
to
decide
today,
new
ones?
A
So
let
me
see,
should
we
start
with
what's
going
on
wow
so
like
maybe
we
should
scrub.
These
are,
is
are
the
important
ones
within
this
list.
Over
the
past
two
days
of
new
issues
that
haven't
been
prioritized,
some
of
them
have
been
prioritized,
some
of
them
has
been
triaged.
G
A
B
B
P
label,
so,
let's
guys,
I
think
the
goal
here
is
that
we
announced
right
on
monday
that
we're
going
to
mark
everything
that
remains
by
friday
as
no
longer
required
for
ga.
That
was
what
agreed
on
right.
I,
I
don't
think
we
should
be
marking
anything
new
as
it
requires
for
ga.
A
B
B
Do
yes,
otherwise
we
say
that,
yes,
the
freeze
is
today
everything
that
is
still
marked
as
released
for
ga
automatically
is
marked
as
after
ga
and
we're
done
with
that.
That's
the
call
that
we
need
to
make
do
we
find
do
we
see
anything
that
must
be
in
the
ga
release
or
we
don't
right.
That's
what
we
need
to
do.
A
After
ga,
okay,
so
the
determination
is
released
after
ga.
This
can
answer
on
its
own,
but
it's
not
going
to
have
any
pr's,
that's
associated
with
it
that
we
have
to
worry
about.
H
B
H
So
tiger
correct
me
from
wrong,
but
it
sounds
like
you
were:
making
a
proposal
to
the
agenda
of
this
meeting
and
that
we
restructure
things
and
try
to
go
through
and
do
the
action
items
that
tigran
was
just
describing
given.
That
is
the
one
priority
that
we
actually
need
to
accomplish
today,
that
what
we're
doing
right
now
and
reassigning
may
not
be
the
most
useful
use
of
our
time
right
now,.
A
C
E
B
Let's
yeah:
let's,
let's
set
the
bar
very
high
guys
for
anything
for
for
us
to
freeze
the
spec.
I
I
expect
a
very
high,
particularly.
E
Yeah
yeah,
absolutely
so
so.
Technically,
all
the
sdks
would
not
comply
with
the
ga.
If
we,
if
we
read
it
very
carefully,
but
I
I
think
we
we
all
know
what
is
meant
by
that
already
so
clarifying
it.
After
g.
B
Let's
just
remember:
there
is
one
exception
to
this:
the
editorial
changes
right,
if
the,
if
conceptually
the
spec,
is
there,
and
it
only
requires
some
clarification-
the
wording
is
slightly
unclear.
We
still
allow
such
changes,
even
if
we
declare
the
trace
spec
frozen
starting
from
today.
That's
that's
the
exception.
We
allow
right.
F
F
F
E
C
E
I'm
not
sure
if
he
responded,
no
or
so
from
from
my
point
of
view,
not
not
actionable
quite
yet,
because
it
would
be
either
either
adding
another
attribute
or
needing
a
link
attribute
to
the
spec,
so
that
can
also
be
done
afterwards.
G
F
I
personally
like
otlp
and
think
hlp
sounds
worse,
so
there
there
you
are
yeah.
E
G
E
D
B
G
G
E
G
We
have
to
only
have
change
log
entry.
Well,
let's
I
suggest
we
merge
it
and
I
will
have
the
changelog
in
a
follow
up,
so
we
can
just
forget
about
it.
Let's.
I
D
A
I
lost
my
place.
Where
was
I.
A
D
B
This
is,
I
guess,
never
we're
closing
too
late.
There
are
no
proposals,
no
pr's
we're
just
not
knocking
it.
B
B
D
A
A
Okay,
so
we
can
keep
it
it's
just
this
can
be
kept
for.
Traveling
is.
B
Requirements
yeah,
I
would
still
remove
from
all
the
editorial
ones.
I
would
remove
the
required
4g
label
so
that
it's
not
confusing
someone
wants
to
fix
it,
that's
fine,
and
since
it's
an
editorial,
we
will
accept
it
as
a
pull
request.
If
not,
then,
let's,
let's
not
have
a
bunch
of
issues
which
our
market
is
required
for
g.
That
would
be
confusing
when
we're
actually
saying
we're.
G
C
It
seems
like
we
almost
need
three
labels
required
for
ga
allowed
for
ga
and
after
ga,
okay,
right
and
this,
this
would
be
allowed
for
ga.
If
someone
really
wants
to
do
it,
whereas
totally
irrelevant
things
were
saying,
no,
no,
don't
even
put
that
in
yet
yeah
I'll,
just
quickly
create
that
now.
So
that
way,
I
can
at
least
tag
it,
and
I
can't
and.
C
A
I'll
leave
that
open,
so
I
can
do
it
so
that
one
was,
I
mean
I'll
leave
this
tab
open,
766.
Okay,
there
we
go.
This
is
the
next.
A
B
B
What's
this
about,
I
don't
get
it
I
mean.
Do
you
remember
you
commented
on
this
yeah
I
haven't
paid
attention
to
that.
E
E
B
A
F
I
would,
I
would
probably
prefer
cs,
specify
a
order
of
preference
and
just
have
them
overwrite
each
other.
I
don't
know.
B
B
B
D
A
B
I
A
I
think
I'm
on
this
one.
There
we
go.
G
G
E
We
have
a
pr
for
that
one
in
place
by
yusuke.
I
think.
I
I
E
E
So
the
open
pr
by
yusuke
it's
about
limiting
the
number
of
of
events
and
I
think
also
attributes.
G
B
G
We
need
a
no
and
no
nobody
opposing
strongly.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that
sergey
implicitly
objected
it
without
hitting
the
red
button.
But
if
you,
if
you
ping
him
or
mention
him
there,
then
he
might
might
have
a
chance
to
maybe
he's
fine
with
it.
I
don't
know
and
also
spec's
approval
of
the
team.
B
Yeah,
sergey
specifically
and
speculators.
E
F
A
So
this
942.
E
Yeah,
and
for
that
one,
this
one
is
not
about
the
number
of
attributes,
but
actually
the
the
key
length.
If,
if
we
wanted
to
have
any
any
sanity
limit
on
that
saying,
I
don't
know
100
or
something
like
that.
B
Opt-In,
whoever
wants
to
start
imposing
the
limitations
right.
If,
if
that's,
if
that's,
if
that's
a
restriction
that
is
in
the
implementation,
then
you
make
it
an
option
and
it's
an
opt-in
option.
So
by
default
there
is
no
limitation.
B
B
F
B
E
B
A
B
G
A
A
A
D
D
A
G
G
And
if
I
remember
correctly,
I
think
go
is
the
only
language
that
returns
a
context
besides
the
span
and,
of
course
right
right
right
and
that's
the
thing
that
it's
hard,
that's
not
idiomatic
at
all
in
most
of
the
languages.
So
anyway,
are
these
words.
D
G
That's
because
if
I
remember
correctly
in
python-
and
I
don't
know,
what's
the
state-
I'm
curious
about
that
now-
let
me
check,
but
basically
you
don't
expose
correlation
context
or
no
backus
as
an
object,
but
you
just
provide
functions
to
access.
It.
G
Checking
yeah
that's
correct
in
python,
there's,
no
correlation
context
or
baggage
class.
There's
functions
that
work
in
the
context
and
that's
all.
G
Almost
almost
interior
change,
but
I
could
I
could
be
up
for
allowing
it
otherwise
python
is
gonna,
be
not
compliant
and,
as
I
said
it's
just
like
making
this
optional,
I
think
most
most
implementations
use
a
class
for
this.
So
it's
fine.
We
wouldn't
be
breaking
anything,
just
open
the
door
for
so.
A
H
H
I
think
it's
because
I'm
gonna
do
a
bad
job
on
this,
just
a
heads
up
but
like
I
think
it's
just
because
that
different
implementations
are
doing
it
differently.
So
some
of
the
implementations
are
validating
and
some
of
them
aren't-
and
I
think
this
is
just
asking
for
a
uniformity
across
that
oh
good
show.
H
H
Kind
of
wonderful
this
could
be
an
editorial
because
it's
an
undefined
behavior.
I
guess
at
this
point
it's
defined
in
the
trace
context,
but
it's
not
it's
undefined.
If,
like
we
as
an
open,
cylinder
group
want
to
actually
implement
this,
and
if
you
wanted
to
do
this
after
ga
and
say
like
yeah,
let's
tighten
this
down,
then
the
people
that
aren't
implementing
it,
you
know
or
aren't
validating
it
could
start
or
if
you
wanted
to
go
the
other
way
you
could
just
stop
validating.
I
don't
think
that's
actually
going
to
cause
it.
B
That's
just
my
thought
yeah.
So
I
think
that
this
is
about
whether
we
make
a
decision
with
whether
we
make
a
we
make
one
decision
as
a
whole
for
the
entire
open,
telemetry
or
each
language
decides
on
their
own,
because
it's
a
mate
requirement,
the
I
guess
yeah.
You
could
say
that
probably
it's
it's
a
clarification
of
the
spec
to
which
we
refer
to
right
and
from
that
perspective
it's
it's
a
stretch,
but
maybe
it's
an
editorial
qualification,
hello.
G
G
B
Sounds
like
again,
we
have.
We
have
a
reference
implementation
for
this.
The
collector
does
this
right.
Technically,
we
could
just
refer
to
that
say
and
say
that
do
whatever
the
collector
does
and
the
code
is
there?
It's
it's
a
coded
specification
in
a
way
we
could
do
that.
I
don't
know
if
we
because
actually
specifying
this
in
words
it's
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
point
in
doing
that,
right.
K
B
B
So
we
could
do
that
we
could
just
instead
of
defining
it
in
the
spec,
just
other
link
to
the
existing
codified
implementation
right.
It's
in
the
collector,
it's
a
translation
code.
We
would
say
do
as
the
collector
does.
I
don't
know
if
that
works,
but
that
would
count
as
an
editorial
change
in
mind.
B
Unless,
unless
we
decide
that
we,
we
want
to
have
a
different
way
of
implementing
that,
and
in
that
case,
that's
no
longer
an
editorial
change,
we
would
have
to.
I
don't
know,
have
10
pages
of
description
of
how
exactly
this
works.
I
don't
really
think
that
this
should
be
a
specification
written
in
in
a
human
language.
This
is
just
unless
right,
you
have
a
much
more
precise
specification
in
form
of
a
code.
B
Yeah
and
and
maybe
other
other
comments
saying
that
allow
it
to
either
link
to
an
existing
preference
implementation.
D
B
All
right
good
job
guys,
so
how
many
did
we
leave
it's
required
or
allow
it
so
required?
There
should
be
no
longer
any
required
right.
These
are
p3s.
C
A
G
Actually,
since
I
have
tc
members
here,
as
I
said,
I
think
that
the
most
important
ones
are
for
expand
context.
Two
of
them
are,
two
of
them
were
opened
by
anurag.
We
have
to
decide
okay,
one
of
them.
D
A
A
G
F
G
Yeah,
I
think
it's
totally
totally
impossible.
The
question
is
whether
we
want
to
keep
the
issue
for
as.
G
E
F
G
G
I
think
we
we
we
can
keep
the
issue
for
discussing.
As
I
said
future
designs,
we
will
have
enough
time.
E
G
I
disagree
on
this
point.
What
please?
Yes,
I
could
say.
No,
I
could
say
after
ja,
because
it's
a
breaking
change.
I
don't
I
don't
personally
imagine
like
easily
an
implementation
not
needing
spam
context,
but
yeah.
I
would
like
to
hear
their
opinions
figure
out.
I
mean
armin
and
me.
We
said
what
we
think:
what
ticket
and
j
mcd
and
tyler
and
everybody
else.
Please
comment
on
this.
F
Yeah
and
my
feelings
are
probably
bigger
than
we
have
a
scope
for
like
this.
Just
reminds
me
that
otep
is
used
like
the
yuri
raised
about
fan
context
like
being
like
getting
rid
of
spam
and
like
for
me.
There
are
bigger
questions
here
that
we
can't
answer.
So
I'm
inclined
to
do
the
easiest
thing
and
support
carlos.
H
Yeah,
I'm
kind
of
feeling
the
same
as
josh.
Actually
I
I
do
feel
underwhelmed
as
well
at
the
context
of
this,
but
pun
intended
but
yeah.
I
I
think
the
safer
option
is
probably
the
better
path
to
take
at
this
point.
E
G
Okay,
so
let's
go
with
afterj
one,
so,
okay,
so
in
that
case,
I'm
thinking
that
probably
opening
the
door
for
the
next
item,
which
is
I
forgot
on
ceiling
spun
context,
can
probably
help.
E
G
G
Like
currently,
this
is
a
sale
class
and
this
is
done
in
order
to
to
not
put
too
much
responsibility
on
your
side.
You
know
like
we
don't
have
to
support
people
extending
this
one,
but
there's
a
value
in
in
non-sealing.
E
But
what
the
concerns
that
you
just
mentioned
would
be
addressed
by
saying
you
can
only
create
it
from
the
api,
but
it
does
not
prescribe
the
exact
way
of
implementing
it,
because
now
it
even
has
java
lingo
and
says
you
must
write
public
final
class
on
it.
So
to
speak,
and-
and
I
think
that
from
the
most
recent
change
that
your
concerns
should
have
been
addressed,
but
you
might
want
to
take
a
second
look
at
it.
G
G
So,
let's
pop
back
then
and
yeah,
let's,
let's
you
know
reserved
time
till
the
end
of
the
day,.
F
G
Okay,
let's
allow
bogdan
to
comment.
If
he
doesn't
answer
by
the
end
of
the
day,
we
can
merge
it
make
it
hard
call
he's
the
only
one.
I
remember
that
he
was
opposed
to
this.
G
B
Don't
say
it
will
be
closed.
I
guess
it
will
be
merged
right.
That's
what
that's
yeah
yeah!
I
guess.
G
G
Yep
exactly
yeah,
that's
the
only
one
and
digital
did
you
work
with
borden,
I
mean
not
physically,
but
in
maybe
yeah.
If
you
could
be
him
would
be
nice,
because
this
is
like
an
important
one.
Thanks.
So
much.
B
A
Okay,
so
that's
970.
G
A
E
F
B
E
To
me
that
sounds
like
an
editorial
change.
We
have
a
yes,
we
have
a
pr
for
that
in
place,
so,
let's
make
it
allowed
for
ga
to
add.
E
G
A
Sorry,
yes,
I
got
a
half
hour
cleared
and
hello
allowed.
B
Is
fine,
there's
a
pr
already
for
that,
so
yeah.
G
D
E
Yeah,
that's
in,
in
my
opinion,
also
editorial,
because
christian
or
oberon
double
zero
made
a
made
a
statement
that
sounds
reasonable,
that
it
should
not
be
reset
automatically,
and
that
would
just
be
a
guideline
in
the
in
the
api
spec
that
this
should
not
happen.
D
E
This
is
in
the
past
so
and
would
be
something
that
only
applies
to
zipkin.
So
I
guess
this
is
after
cheering
yep.
A
G
Wasn't
this,
this
is
a
new
one.
Okay,
I
haven't
seen
this
one.
G
D
A
B
D
B
B
It's
just
a
bug
they
treat
it
street
insecure
equals.
False
is
actually
an
indication
that
the
tls
should
be
enabled.
I
think
something
like
that.
There
was
a
link
to
the
to
the
java
implementation,
but
that's
a
bug.
C
That's
a
bug
that
should
be
fixed.
As
for
this
issue,
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
this
needs
to
be
in
for
ga,
and
I
don't
know
if
I
agree
that
it's
a
good
idea.
B
The
the
issue
here
is
that
do
we
do
we
try
to
be
careful
and
more
secure,
or
we
try
to
be
to
try
to
make
it
easier
to
use,
let's
say:
you're,
just
sending
to
the
localhost
or
you're
you're
experimenting
or
whatever.
K
B
D
B
Do
we
want
to
do
we
want
to
say
that
okay,
we
prefer
things
to
to
be
easy
to
get
started
so
that
they
work
out
of
the
box
or
we
prefer
things
to
be
secure
so
that
you
spend
more
effort
opting
out
of
security
and
saying
okay,
I
don't
want
it
to
be
secure,
we'll
just
let
it
work
yeah.
B
Hardcore
in
the
sense
that
we
we
do
what
armin
proposes,
or
it's
just
one
behavior
not
dependent
on
whether
it's
localhost
or
not
localhost.
G
Well,
coming
to
a
decision
either
one
way
or
another,
I'm
saying
this
because
you
know
you
are
working
in
the
collector.
So
is
this.
C
Okay,
okay,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
put
in,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
put
in
the
local
hosts
logic
into
all
of
the
export,
like
I
don't
know,
do
all
of
them
even
support
secure
and
insecure
modes.
They
might
not
like.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
make
that
assumption
about
exporters.
F
C
E
My
personal
feeling
would
be
we
can
discuss
this,
but
if
there
is
no
time
to
discuss,
then
I
would
keep
the
current
safety
for
adoption
and
it
sounds
like
if
there
was
not
sufficient
time
to
discuss
discussions.
Yeah.
B
How
hard
to
make
this
call,
because
there
is
no
accepted
industry
standard
on
this
different
libraries.
Different
languages
have
different
defaults
on
this.
I
think
goal
defaults
to
secure
by
default
some
other
client
libraries
default
to
insecure.
There's,
no,
there's
no
accepted
common
common
sense
for
this
behavior.
A
F
The
bug
the
bug
is
that
we
have
three
separate
settings
that
have
to
be
chosen
in
sync
with
each
other,
like
I
wish
we
actually
had
just
one
setting,
which
was
a
string
which
had
like
http
or
https.
If,
if
it's
secure
and
secure,
and
then
I
have
this
name
import
like
one
field
that
can
be
set
because
the
default
should
be
secure,
the
problem
is
it's
too
hard
to
change
the
default,
because
you
have
to
set
three
variables
once
they
set
to
like
your
local
host.
F
J
B
G
B
B
C
A
C
Yes,
yes,
say
that
put
that
right
in
there
yeah
so
required
for
ga
put
a
comment
flag,
the
members
of
the
tc,
you
aren't
here
and
say
people
on
the
call
want
to
do
insecure
equals.
True,
if
you
disagree,
say
so
now
or
forever
hold
your
piece
I
mean
the
key
is
that
we
want
to
make
the.
F
C
Sorry
and
say,
if
there's
no
additional
comments,
we
will
make
it
such
that
secure
equals
true,
as
default.
J
B
A
By
default,
yeah
keep
secured
by
default
ping
open
telemetry.
C
B
Sounds
editorial
but
yeah,
that's
that's
that's
kind
of
editorial.
We
just
don't
specify
what
are
the
supported
compression
levels
or
the
compression
methods,
not
levels.
Well,
I
mean
yeah,
probably
useful
to
have
it
specified.
I
think
allowed
right.
A
P2P3
997,
that's
my
race
number,
okay,.
I
E
Oh
cool,
I
didn't
know
that
that
one
is
up
the
g,
so
changing
that
would,
at
least
from
the
from
a
user's
perspective,
not
be
braking
and
from
a
consumer's
perspective.
I
would
be
surprised
if
they
would
have
interpreted
that
way.
Already.
A
D
C
C
Maybe
I
thought
I
thought
that
you
could
there's
like
a
checkbox
or
something
but
yeah
I
have
to
I
don't.
Maybe
oh
armin,
do
you
want
it?
Do
you
want
to
change
all
these
to
all
the
p3s
that
are
required
for
ga
to
after
gather
one
moment,
if
you
have
the
checkbox.
C
Yes,
yes,
related
solution,
dash
label!
Andrew
you
probably
once
you
put
the
query
string
in
just
copy
paste
into
the
chat
and
then
armin.
K
C
A
G
We
have
a
few
a
few
pr's,
but
we
will
handle
that
with
you
exciting.
B
Okay,
so
let's
ping
open
pr
owners
and
let's
make
sure
we
finalize
them
today,
right,
yes,.
D
A
E
G
G
I
guess
that
we
should
try
to
get
prs
done
today.
Let
me
see.
A
Well,
the
most
important
ones
are
the
p1
like
right.
One
is
not
cpr.
G
I
G
A
See
it
well,
I
like
to
link
it
are
all
these
linked
with
issues.
G
No
well,
the
first
one
is
a
follow-up.
Second
one.
It
has
an
issue.
This
is
mine,
so
it's
fine.
I
just
need
to
update
it
yeah
I
wanted
to
merge
boxton's
pr
in
case
he
wouldn't
be
around,
so
we
cannot
close
his
issue.
So
it's
fine.
I
just
will
do
this
and
and
it's
super
straightforward,
so
in
other
words,
this
is
a
required
allow
allowed
for
j.
We
will
not
die
without
it.
A
A
G
Since
this
is
sin,
this
is
something
that
it's
an
extension
after
j
okay.
So
it's
fine,
because
the
issue
itself
is
after
gi.
So
if
you
want
to
label
it
after
gi
as
well.
A
G
G
A
It
doesn't
have
approvals
so
yeah.
I
think
we
should
line
it
up
with
what
is
the
issue
and
just.
G
A
Okay,
let
me
explain
what
so
that
way,
if
you
think
it's
suitable,
I
propose
we
line
the
pr's
up
with
an
issue
if
it's
got
an
issue
of
required
j
after
j
blah
blah
right.
If
it's
after
ga
we'll
say
like
this
is
not
I'll
put
a
comment
on
here.
This
guy
doesn't
seem
to
be
part
of
the
community.
Saying
like
this
is
not
going
to
go
in
for
ga.
G
G
Oh
after,
by
the
way,
yes,
okay,
that
makes
sense
yeah
by
the
way
I'm
gonna
sit
on
my
video,
because
I
need
to
prepare
some
coffee.
Okay,
I
only
slept.
I
only
slept
four
hours
because
I
had
insomnia,
so
I
needed
a
last
coffee.
So
I
see
just
keep
keep
talking.
I
will
listen.
I
will
be
listening
answer
answering
you.
D
D
G
G
A
G
Specify
hispanic
creation
with
sampling-
that's
after
ga,
okay,
that's
fine!
Well
I
so
I
think
that
yeah,
actually
you
know,
let
me
see
because
he
says
party
partial
fix.
The
reminder
will
require
an
api
change,
so
it
means
that
this
in
theory
could
go
in
without,
but
at
the
same
time
I
don't
see,
can
you
walk?
G
A
G
A
Then
what
I
can
do
is
put
it
here
and
then
put
a
comment:
if
he
feels
it's
an
editorial
change,
you
can
bring
it
up
and
then
it's
safe
to
merge
any
time
after
that,
right
after
perfect.
A
A
G
A
A
G
That's
related
to
the
repo
yeah.
I
think.
Oh
no,
actually
I
don't
know
well,
it's
kind
of
an
editorial
change.
G
A
So
labels
is
allowed
j,
p3.
A
Well
I'll
just
leave
edit
allow
for
ga
right,
because
this
seems
like
not
really
to
spec.
A
C
G
Yeah,
I
think
it's.
I
think
we
should
go
with
what
digram
actually
asked
tigran.
Let
me
see
if
you
could
go
up
how
many
approvals
it
has.
Oh
okay,
I
think
it's
still
too
late.
I
think
that
yeah
overall,
we'll
have
to
listen,
we'll
have
to
accept
this.
G
It's
it's
a
pr.
It
was
opened
three
days
ago.
It
has
enough
approvals
or
if
you
could
leave
a
comment
saying
we
think
that
the
current
the
the
proposal
by
tigaran,
even
though.
G
I
don't
know
this
is
a
turkey
one.
I
don't
know
how
to
communicate
that.
Maybe
you
don't
like
it.
You're,
not
super
satisfied,
but
the
rest
of
you
know
of
the
contributors
feel
that
because
then,
if
not,
it
means
changing
and
you
know
reconsider
our
options,
I'm
not
sure.
G
Okay,
so
actually
you
know,
tigran
is
the
author,
so
please
ping
him
and
say:
tigran
can't
you
comment
and
what
and
what
do
you
suggest
we
should
do
and
he
has
a
tc
could
make
a
heart
call
eventually.
D
G
G
Actually,
now
that
you
mentioned,
I
mean
to
me,
it
sounds
important
enough,
but
it's
semantic
conventions,
so
maybe
not
okay,
so
you
ask
him
digram
like
what
those
does.
What
does
he
think
about
the
pro?
Actually
just
ask
him
whether
he
thinks
this
is
an
editorial
change
or
something
that
we
or
or
what
in
general,
what?
K
A
Okay,
we
got
to
get
to
our
next
meeting.
G
Yes,
the
remaining
ones.
I
think
that
required.
G
That's
fine,
there's
only
there's
only
one,
I
think
well
they're,
not
there's
two
that
span
collection
limits
too
late.
Now,
where
the
tiers
trades
that
one
that's
gonna
be
said,
there's
there's
only
one
other
thing,
that's
important
to
know
which
is
yeah,
but
there's
a
related
issue.
G
D
G
No,
no
just.
I
think
that
the
35
end
variables
in
otp
exporter.
I
know,
but
I
think
that
that's
linked
to
the
issue
that
we
talked
about
with
the
insecure
or
not.
Okay,
it's
fine
she's
fine
and
I
have
two
two
pr's
that
are
editorial
changes
because
they
affect
the
change
log.
So
it's
fine,
no
problem.
Okay,
we
are
cool
too,
so
see
you
see
you
in
ten
seconds.