►
From YouTube: 2021-12-15 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).
C
C
B
B
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
I
felt
that
probably
I
think
we
had
substantial.
I
think
changes
which
have
gone
during
last
30
days
and
probably
I
think
it
should
be
good
to
have
one
release.
I
don't
see
any
major
breaking
changes
in
this,
but
I
think
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
A
B
B
B
B
Probably
we
can
go
through
today.
Let's,
let's
try
to
see
there
are
some
some
pr
features.
Still
we
will
go
through
the
pr's
and
we'll
just
decide
if
they
can
be
part
of
this
release,
or
not
I
mean,
after
that
we
can
go
through
them
matrix,
update
yeah,
so
I
mean
probably
I
can
just
open
the
for
matrix.
I
can
just
open
the
issues
and
so
so
the
matrix
for
matrix.
I
think
we
have
already.
B
Let
me
open,
see
the
closed
ones
so
for
meter
and
meter
pro
provider,
this
was
merged
and
right
now
the
view
was
complete.
The
view
sdk
changes
and
it
was
ready
for
review.
I
do
see
some
comments
coming
from
not
this
one
from
the
pr.
Let's
see
that
here
yeah,
I
do
see
a
few
comments
from
josh
and
I
think
I'll
address
them.
B
So
there
are.
There
are
a
few
comments
from
josh
and
I
think
I'll
address
them,
but
please
please,
I
think
whenever
you
have
time
nothing
urgent
again,
but
whenever
you
have
time
please
go
through
this
would
like,
like.
I
think
if
we
have
couple
of
review
review
done
on
this,
I
think
we
should
be
good
to
merge.
It
started
doing
aggregation
api.
I've
kept
it
on
draft
as
of
now.
B
B
B
That's
yeah,
actually,
that's
the
problem
right
now
I
mean
I,
I
know
that
there
are.
There
is
an
issue
which
right
now
sr
has
taken
the
the
problem.
Right
now
is
that,
like
this
metric
matrix
reader
matrix
exporter,
the
problem
is
that
it
all
depends
on
the
the
objects
and
the
structures
which
we
are
creating
in
the
initial
set
of
years,
and
I
think
when
these
structures
are
defined,
we
should
be
good
enough
to
work
on
the
rest
of
the
sdk
implementation.
B
So
I
just
want
one
that
probably
this
is
done
and
then
I
think
which
way
it
should
not
happen
that
we
are.
We
start
parallely
on
multiple
all
these
issues,
and
then
we
have
to
revert,
revert
or
incorporate
the
changes
in
case.
Anything
is
changed
in
the
other
dependent
years.
A
B
So
yeah
so
as
I
think
this
is
still
with
you,
but
I
mean
you
can
start
looking
into
this.
I
think,
probably
with
the
specs
and
going
through
the
current
set
of
pr's,
which
we
already
have
to
get
an
understanding,
and
if
you
feel
that
it's
good
enough
to
use
to
start
with
this
probably
go,
you
can
go
ahead.
B
E
C
E
B
B
E
E
B
B
If
you
can
go
if
you
go
through
the
milestones
that
will
have,
that
should
have
the
current
information
and
when
it
should
be
available,
so
the
due
date
is
31st
of
make
sure
to
jail
for
leftist
sdk
prototype
to
be
ready-
and
I
think
once
these
both
of
these
are
complete,
then
I
think
they
should
be
good
to
start
exporter
work
so
probably
whenever
we
feel
that
we
have
substantial
implementation
of
sdk
and
apid.
B
If
you
want
to
really
work
on
matrix
implementation,
I
think
we
definitely
need
more
detail
right
now
here
to
work,
but
I'll
suggest
before
before
directly
digging
into
the
matrix
implementation.
Probably
if
you
can
look
into
some
of
some
of
the
areas
of
some
of
the
open
issues
and
try
to
take
up
some
of
the
issues
which
will
help
you
understand
the
current
code
base.
B
So
there
are
lots
of
open
issues
right
now
and
that's
a
good
start
if
you
really
want
to
contribute
for
longer
and
in
matrix,
because
this
matrix
implementation
will
go
continuing
for
probably
another
couple
of
months
and
and
the
good
start
of
directly
jumping
into
matrix
implementation.
If
you
can
get
some
understanding
with
the
current
code
base,
how
it
is
structured,
what
what's
the
what's
the
guidelines
you're
using
for
your
implementation.
B
B
B
So
if
you
feel
that
that
would
be
good
stuff
for
you
or
you
can
probably
bring
me
offline,
I
think
we
can
work
out
some
of
so
many
things
that
will
help
you
out
to
understand
the
code
base
and
probably
a
couple
of
weeks
or
if
you,
if
you
work
on
any
of
the
issues
in
traces
or
in
logs,
then.
E
C
B
B
Yes,
exactly
so
that's
what
I
would
probably
I
was
thinking
that
take
up
if
you
can
take
any
of
the
issues
like
I
added
some
of
the
tests.
Some
of
the
I
think
I've
discussed
some
of
the
unique
tests
for
gypkin
and,
like
dagger,
are
missing
for
these
explorers.
I
think,
as
as
I'm
told
last
week
also,
we
don't
have
unit
tests
for
your
exporter
right
and
we
don't
even
have
it
for
zipkin.
So
these
are
some
of
the
areas.
I
think
that
will
help.
B
E
Think
I'm
good
thanks
for
it's
really
awesome.
B
B
It
just
uses
the
function
name
as
we
mean
that
we
are
already
going
to
be
using
the
open,
telemetry
namespace,
which
is
incorrect.
It
can
be
used
outside
the
namespace,
so
fully
qualifying
the
namespace
for
the
functions
to
get
the
value
of
70
convention,
and
we
will
using
the
same
macro
name
for
both
resources
and
resources
and
trace
semantic
conversion,
which
was
incorrect.
B
E
B
E
Yeah
for
this,
as
you're
mentioning
to
relative
reference,
so
I
I
so
as
you
as
we
could
see,
there
is
a
particular
release
and
also
a
branch
associated
with
that
that
is
mentioned
in
the
third
party
release
right.
Like
one
point,
eight.
E
Two
five:
two:
three,
yes
yeah.
I
was
able
to
get
there
because
I
cloned
1.8
release
and
checked
out
the
particular
specific
branch
2523.
E
B
E
Not
sure
if
there
is
any
specific
implementation
that
is
implemented
under
this
specific
branch,
so
I
would
like
to
listen
happy
to
listen.
B
E
B
B
E
B
D
E
Right
and
and
also
can
we
make,
can
we
get
the
release
like
for
the
google
dash?
Can
we
get
the
release
to
1.8.0,
because
I
need
to
also
make
sure,
because
if
I
do
only
for
the
release
1.8.0,
I
will
try
to
install
it
locally
and
I
will
update
in
the
team
channel.
If
it
is
failing,
I
will
flag
that
in
the
channel,
so
we
can
okay.
So
we
can
there.
B
Is
an
if
there
is
any
reason
you
feel
that
we
should
be
using
a
different
version
feel
free
to
raise
a
pr
on
this
with
a
justification.
Why
we
need.
B
B
That's
a
good
question
yeah.
This
is
a
good
question.
Probably
I
mean
we
can
start
doing
it.
We
do
do
it
for
grpc
regularly.
I
mean
all
right
haven't
done
it
for
a
while,
but
definitely
grpc.
We
are
using
more
recent
version.
We
can
start
doing
it.
I
mean
I
don't
have
any.
I
don't
have
any
concern.
It
was
just
that
this
gives
us
probably
fine.
I
think
we
can.
We
can
start
using
for
google
test.
B
E
Yeah,
and
also
the
point
is,
as
as
I
can
go
through
the
documentation
for
the
cmake,
especially,
it
says
that
we
use
1.10
for
as
part
of
google
test
version
for
cma.
E
So
so
is
it
the
isn't
it
the
same
version
that
we
are
using
in
ci?
So
are
these
the
different
things
or
is
there
any
compatibility
issue
with
particular
version
in
ci
working.
B
E
B
Some
of
the
things
I
mean
for
some
of
the
things
like
for
cmake,
I
mean
I
I'll
say
I
mean
it's
better:
to
use
the
version,
the
the
more
lower
version
to
support
developers
who
have
been
using
the
version
like
the
cmak
version,
because
of
some
reason
they
are
not
going
to
upgrade
to
a
higher
version
better
to
use
the
lowest
possible
version,
because
I
know
you
can
see,
make
some
of
the
features
which
we
may
we
may
want,
which
we
may
want
to
use,
which
is
there
in
the
higher
version
that
will
kind
of
block
the
other
developers
who
are
still
in
the
lower
version.
B
So
so
for
some
of
these.
Some
of
the
things
I
think
like
like
cma,
that's
that's
more
of
a
development
of
difference
dependency.
I
think,
probably
better
to
use
the
lowest
possible
version
to
ensure
that
I
mean
all
the
developers
are
able
to
build
with
that
version,
and
that's
that
that's
my
take,
but
probably
would
be
good
to
hear
from
others,
tom
tom
and
I,
what
do
you
think
should
be
using.
E
But
but
in
the
documentation
we
are
still,
we
are
still
recommending
to
use,
see
a
google
dash
for
1.10
right.
It's
a
more
decent
version
than
the
version
that
we
mentioned
in
this
third
party
release.
So
yeah.
E
Like
the
install.md
install
mb,.
B
Okay,
yeah,
so
that's
that's.
I
think
that's
what
I
mentioned
probably.
E
B
See
the
my
comment
in
the
pr
right.
B
E
E
Yeah
and
there
my
question
is:
let's
say
we
recommend
gta
version
to
be
installed
for
particular
1.8.0
with
particular
branch.
So
can
we
normalize
it
to
1.8.0
if,
if
that's
working,
fine
like
the
release
1.2.1.8.0,
rather
than
having
like
a
branch
tag
to
it,
yeah.
B
E
And
it
is
not
able
to
view
to
to
google
data,
I
tried
searching
it,
so
I
think
for
one
point:
eight
I
was
not
able
to
see
it
was.
B
B
E
B
D
B
Okay,
yeah,
you
have
so
you're
saying
you
have
to
run
the
script
to
update
the
third
party
text.
Yes,
that's
that's
a
good,
that's
what
I
was
thinking.
Can
we
somehow
automate
it
as
we
can't
do
it
right,
because
if
we
automate
it
as
part
of
build,
it
has
to
we
have
to
check
in
so
we
can't
check
in
as
part
of
that
right,
okay,
yeah.
B
B
Okay,
so
take
your
callback,
I
think
that's
totally
fine
if
you
really
want
to
upgrade
the
version
to
1.8.1,
if
you
feel
any
issues.
B
B
B
A
D
A
D
B
B
We
can
target
all
these
in
the.
If
you
can
review
it,
then
you
can
target
it
in
this
in
this
release.
Okay,.
A
B
I
know
I
have
to
do
some
changes
in
this,
but
probably
probably
we
can
see
how
much
time
it
takes
otherwise,
otherwise
at
least
some
the
pr
this
looks
to
be
ready.
I
think
we
can.
We
can
probably
take
it
in
the
current
release.
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
So
for
the
for
this
one
instrumentation
library
and
resources,
currently
the
otlp
http
logger
is
directly
fetching
the
resources
through
resource
api,
which
is
which
is
incorrect.
It
should
use
this
this
flow
to
get
that
so
that
has
to
change
once
this
implements.
B
B
D
B
B
B
Hey
tom,
I
think
you
had
some
comments
in
this.
Probably
if
you
want
to.
B
D
B
Okay,
I
think
that's
some
probably
issues
you
can
quickly
see.
I
just
created
two
for
unit
tests.
This
was
created
yesterday
and
I
think
the
pr
have
raised
internal
log
level
can
be
set
by
runtime.
You
don't
support
it,
and
owen
was
saying
he
want
to
provide
this
support
and
I
think
that
will
raise
apr
for
this.
B
Otp
grpc
exporter
should
be
built
by
default.
Yeah.
I
think
owen
has
already
raised
a
pr
for
this
regex
crash.
I
mean
I
cannot
reproduce
it.
I
tried
to
do
it.
I'm
not
sure
why
that
strange
is
this
guy
he
can.
He
is
getting
the
crash
on
the
regex
which
we
provide,
but
it's
not.
I
cannot
really
reproduce
the
crash.
So
probably
I'm
just
waiting.
E
B
B
D
B
B
17
and
20
not
building
it
bs
29
yeah
this
this
is,
I
think,
probably
we
need
to
definitely
add
this
support
so
which
is
because
there
are
some
of
the
stl
constructs
which
have
caught
application
replicated
in
c
plus
17,
and
they
have
been
removed
in
c
plus,
plus
20.,
our
internal,
no
std
or
epsilon,
which
we
are
using
also
excel,
which
already
brings
those
constructs
the
result
off.
B
I
think
we
have
to
use
we,
we
can
take
it
because
we
already
are
using
now
http,
we
are
using
sp
xl,
we
have
taken
this
implementation
for
website,
and
excellence
has
already
provided
the
fix
for
this,
so
we
have
to
basically
cop
take
it
from
there.
I
can.
I
can
put
in
the
comment
the
the
fix
which
excel
is
providing
for
this,
so
they
basically
check
for
the
version
of
c
plus,
which
we
are
using
and
use
the
construct.
According
to
that,.
D
D
D
B
C
A
C
B
I
know
we
there
have
been
some
discussion
like
in
the
next
issue.
This
is
for
dll
support
and
I
know
is
somebody
I
think
this
guy.
He
said
he
did
refer
for
excel,
that
it.
B
B
B
So
yeah,
okay,
probably
probably
I
think,
then,
let's,
let's
see
our
current
implementation
and
what
changes
are
required.
If
you
want
to
know
from
this
support
building
dls
we
already
are
discussing
and
let's
see
so
as
of
now
we're
not
going
to
add
anything.
So
any
changes
in
our
code
base
to
support
dln.
B
C
B
B
B
So,
as
of
now
like,
if
you
have
std
is
true,
it's
trying
to
use
all
the
constructs
which
we
are
using
from
our
facility,
but
we
only
want
to
use
some
part
of
that.
Not
all
of
them.
B
B
B
B
B
Now
we
need
to
see
how
to
support
it.
So
it's
something
fails
since
gcc
7.5
threat
local
storage,
somehow
it
does
not
work
as
expected
in
gcc,
7.5.0,
so
yeah.
But
let's
see
I
think,
it's
open.
As
of
now.
B
Yeah,
I
think
we
are
good
anything
else.
We
want
to
discuss
and
yeah.
I
wanted
to
see,
probably
how
about
I
mean
tomorrow
next,
two
weeks,
it's
only
the
holiday
season.
So
what.
A
B
C
B
B
Like
really
whether
it's
good
to
change
and
probably
I'm
discussing
the
maintenance
meeting,
also
that
we
want
to
change
it
one
week
ahead,
so
we'll
probably
discuss.
B
Feel
free
not
to
join
this
meeting
till
we
we
will
adjust
it.
B
A
B
You,
okay,
thank
you,
I
think
let's
meet
next
week,
I
mean,
if
we
all
are
there.
I
think
probably
thanks
for
joining
have
a
good
day
thanks
good.