►
From YouTube: 2023-01-04 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry@cncf.io's Personal Meeting Room
A
A
C
A
D
All
right
so
I
will
run
the
meeting
today
instead
of
10.
Again
so
I
would
say:
let's
wait
a
bit
more
until
everybody's
here
and
then
we
can
get
started.
D
C
I
put
the
top
I
think
everything
on
the
agenda
actually
yeah
I
just
linked
it
so
that
people
could
see
what
packages
were
released
after
the
API,
SDK
and
experimental
release.
That's
open
right
now.
We
will
release
contrib
again.
The
release
actually
succeeded
in
contrib,
though
so
that's
nice
to
see.
D
C
Like
I
said,
there's
already
a
PR
open
for
API
SDK
experimental,
it's
minor
across
the
board.
No
breaking
changes
in
any
stable
packages
per
usual,
actually
I
think
there
were
no
breaking
and
experimental
either
this
time,
but
it's
easier
to
just
bump
the
minor
version
everywhere.
A
C
Relatively
straightforward
there,
the
only
so
the
comment
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
there,
any
chance
of
including
3434
I,
had
also
hoped
to
include
this.
This
is
the
time
drift
PR,
but
it
depends
on
reviews,
so
at
this
point,
I'm
assuming
it
won't
be
in
for
this
release
just
because
of
timing,
but
if
we
can
get
it
reviewed
and
merged
in
time,
then
I
would
like
to
include
it
if
possible.
D
Yeah
an
agenda
because
approved
it
yeah
all
right.
Thank
you
and
then
the
next
part
is
the
repo
settings
documentation,
PR.
C
Actually,
if
you
click
on
that
link,
there
is
a
set
of
like
settings
that
are
supposed
to
be
set
on
every
repo,
so,
like
Branch
protection
rules,
general
rules
teams
stuff
like
that,
and
then,
if
you
scroll
up
a
little
bit,
it
looks
like
I
linked
to
the
wrong
heading
yeah.
So
it's
just
repository
settings.
These
are
all
like
the
base
settings,
so
I
did
update
the
ones
that
didn't
match
that
I
thought
made
sense
and
I
documented,
where
we
differ
from
these
base.
C
Settings
which
we
are
allowed
to
do.
I
followed
the
sort
of
format
that
was
used
in
the
community
repo.
For
this,
the
one
deviation
that
we
have
that's
important.
That
is
not
documented.
Here
we
had
for
a
long
time
allowed
approvers
to
merge
PRS
and
in
the
base
set
of
rules.
There's
a
setting
called
something
like
restrict.
Who
can
push
to
matching
branches
which
does
not
include
the
approvers?
C
We
can
add
them.
We're
allowed
to
make
changes
like
that,
but
I
wanted
to
see
what
what
people
think,
particularly
the
other
maintainers.
Is
that
I'm?
Okay
with
it?
If,
if
everyone
else
is
allowing
approvers
to
merge,
PRS
I,
don't
think
it's
been
a
problem
so
far.
Okay,.
D
C
Yeah
and
I
think
that
that's
been
going
relatively
well.
I,
certainly
don't
want
to
have
to
be.
You
know.
If
only
the
maintainers
can
merge
PRS,
then
it
is
a
lot
of
load
for
very
little
benefit
there.
So
I'll
make
that
change
real,
quick.
The
only
reason
that
I
hadn't
already
made
it
is
because
I
didn't
realize
until
I
Was
preparing
this
meeting
with
Mark
when
he
told
me
that
he
lost
the
ability
to
emerge
PRS
so
I'll
do
that
this
afternoon.
C
We
also
recently
made
a
change
at
the
last
meeting
before
Christmas
we
talked
about
going
to
One.
Reviewer
I
did
make
that
change,
which
is
in
the
base
set
of
rules
anyways,
so
we
were
actually
more
strict
than
what
the
rest
of
otel
was
recommending,
so
switched
it
to
One.
Reviewer
should
be
fine.
C
If
there's
any,
we
can
always
reevaluate
the
future.
If
we
need
to.
C
Yeah
I
added
this
one
too.
There
are
three
PR's
open
and
a
draft
that
shows
what
they
all
look
like
merged
together.
Matt
Ware
walked
us
through
the
full
PR
two
weeks
ago
and
now,
and
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
how
it
could
be
split
into
multiple
PR's.
So
these
are
I,
guess
the
multiple
PR's
that
we
talked
about
Matt.
Do
you
want
to
say
anything
about
any
of
these
in
particular,
or
I,
just
put
it
on
there
so
that,
hopefully
they
get
reviewed
a
little
bit.
E
Yeah
I
don't
know
that
I
have
too
much
other
to
say
then
take
a
look.
I
see
that
that
you
reviewed
part
one
so
I
will
go
through
and
start
addressing.
Addressing
those
comments.
E
C
Okay,
I
will
also
try
to
find
the
YouTube
recording
of
last
week's
meeting
or
the
week
before,
where
you
did
the
walkthrough
of
the
pr
and
I'll
link
it
here,
because
looking
through
the
YouTube
channel
is
really
painful,
so
I
just
don't
want
everyone
to
have
to
do
it,
but
the
walk
through
should
be
in
a
accessible
place.
So
I
will
link
it
here
and
I'll
also
add
it
to
the
PR
descriptions.
D
All
right,
thank
you
all
right.
So
are
there
any
more
topics
by
anybody,
if
so
feel
free
to
add
it
to
the
agenda
or
otherwise
we
will
move
on
to
the
15
minute
battery
session,
which
I
guess
will
take
a
lot
less
than
15
minutes
this
time
from
what
I
saw
there
isn't
hasn't
really
been
too
much
movement
there.
A
D
Right,
so,
if
there's
nothing
nothing
else,
then
I
guess
we
can
move
on
this
one
right
here,
I
think
we
already
took
a
look
at
last
time
or
even
longer
before
that
there
seems
to
be
some
discussion
going
on,
but
it
has
died
down.
Does
anybody
who
has
participated
in
that
discussion
know
what
this
was
about.
C
Yeah
I
do
so
I
guess
we
can
put
information
requested
label
on
this
since
yeah
I
I
had
originally
asked
them
some
questions,
but
then
others
who
are
more
familiar
have
already
been
walking
through
it
a
little
bit
I'm
still
not
a
hundred
percent
sure
that
this
is
a
bug,
but
right
now
we're
just
waiting
on
the
user.
D
And
I
guess
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one.
The
next
one
I
already
had
a
look
at
this
is
a
user
who
seems
to
have
a
problem
setting
up
the
OTP
exporter
with
the
node
SDK
package
and
they
are
not
receiving
any
traces.
I
just
had
a
quick
look
at
requested.
Some
more
information
seems
to
be
maybe
the
the
node
SDK
isn't
initialized,
yet
when
they
are
creating
these
traces,
so
they
they're
getting
lost
but,
as
I
said,
information
requested
right
now.
C
Do
have
one
thing
to
say
about
that:
yeah
I
think
that
that
the
root
cause
of
that
is
the
asynchronous
resource
detection,
which
is
something
that
is
being
worked
on
by
someone
I
forgot,
who
there
is
a
PR
open.
C
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
number
just
search
resource.
C
C
D
Right,
thank
you.
Definitely
we'll
have
a
look
at
that
one
and
then
moving
on
to
contrib.
D
We
have
this
one
new
right
here:
Amir
created
this
one,
but
already
marked
it
up
for
grabs.
This
is
about
just
some
internal
things.
Renovate
keeps
creating
pull
requests
for
packages
that
are
archived
that
don't
have
any
anyone
to
to
take
care
of
them
and.
A
A
D
We
have
priority
labels,
yeah
can
contribute,
we
have
them.
A
D
Refresh
all
right
and
all
of
these
I
think
were
already
attended
to
this
flan
flanner
commented
on
this
one.
C
D
Yeah
I
guess
I
will
move
over
the
other
windows,
so
you
can
also
have
a
look.
I
am
doing
that
I'm,
not
logged
in
in.
D
All
right,
that
is,
with
a
p
information.
D
And
then
we
have.
C
C
This
is
I,
guess,
maybe
a
feature
request
on
the
operator
or
the
spec
could
be
either.
It's
definitely
not
for
us.
B
B
D
Yeah
all
right
I
will
write
the
comment.
There
saying
looks.
A
Oh
so
this
deck
first
closing
this
for
now.
C
D
A
D
Yeah
you,
but
then
you
already
edit
the
video
for
the
walkthrough.
C
Yep
I
added
a
link
there.
Obviously
I
wasn't
watching
the
video
because
I'm
in
a
meeting
right
now,
but
based
on
the
preview
window,
I
think
I
got
the
right
time
stamp
for
the
start
of
Matt's
walkthrough,
which,
if
I
remember
correctly,
took
something
in
the
in
a
range
of
45
minutes.
C
D
All
right,
thank
you,
then.
If
there's
no
more
topics,
then
yeah
give
everyone
40
minutes
back,
and
that
should
be
it
for
today.