►
From YouTube: 2021-07-08 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
Okay,
I
guess
we
can
get
started,
hey
diego.
You
want
to
take
the
reins
for
this
one
I
was.
I
was
out
for
the
last
week
so.
D
A
As
usual,
please
add
your
name
to
the
attendees
list.
D
Okay,
can
you
see
my
screen
yeah
all
right,
so
well
welcome
everybody.
We
don't
have
topics,
but
if
anyone
has
any
topics
there
are
four
issues.
They
want
to
ask
us
this
to
this
document.
D
Okay,
you
can
start
with
the
first
topic.
I
guess
mere
version
dependencies,
one
or
one
three,
I
think
alex
yeah
go
ahead.
E
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
ask
here,
because
I
I
know
that
oh
I
made
a
comment
in
the
pr,
so
so
there's
a
pr
open
to
unpin
our
dependencies
on
specific
versions
and
allow
the
packages
to
depend
on
the
api
and
the
sdk
based
on
at
least
major
versions.
Currently
as
of
what
the
pr
is
and
oe
has
suggested.
Maybe
we
want
to
focus
this
a
little
bit
more
to
any
version,
that's
greater
than
1.3,
and
I
just
wanted
to
have
a
an
agreement
here
and
in
the
same
meeting.
C
I
was
just
thinking
that
the
last
version
we
released
required
1.3
so
so
requiring
1.3
now
might
result
in
less
surprises,
but
but
I
don't
know
of
any
issues
that
that
might
pop
up
in
the
wonder,
though,
so
no
big
concerns
really
just
just
that
so
far,
the
latest
version
requires
1.3.
So
I
guess
going
back
to
1.0
does
not
give
us
a
lot
of
control,
but
I
could
go
either
way
on
this.
B
What
was
the
last
alpha
package
that
was
released
with
metrics?
Wasn't
it
1.10.
C
D
D
Okay,
I
guess
you
can
just
use
your
errors,
it
is.
E
D
Nice
all
right,
okay,
if
we
can
move
to
the
prs
we
have
here
and
it's
a
review,
so
we
have
here.
D
Yeah
consistently
I've
had
instrument
thing
multiple
times,
so
there
you
go
about.
A
This
sure
I
think
I
brought
this
up
in
previous
meetings
before
we
just
have
a
bunch
of
different
ways
in
how
we
indicate
whether
a
class
or
instrumentation
has
been
instrumented
already.
This
is
just
going
through
a
bunch
of
them
and
making
it
more
consistent.
A
We're
using
the
term
is
instrumented
by
open
telemetry
for
all
of
them.
Now
it
also
fixes
some
of
the
instrumentation
so
that
the
relationship
between
instrument
and
instrument,
app
or
instrument
connection
is
more
well
defined.
Already
have
some
comments
on
it.
I
haven't
taken
a
look
at
you
yet,
but
I
will
be
addressing
them
shortly,
but
just
need
a
couple
more
reviews,
if
you
guys
are
interested
in
how
to
do
this,
I'm
also
bringing
this
up
in
the
specs
as
well.
A
It
doesn't
look
like
there's
been
any
leeway
for
that
or
progress.
It's
still
uncertain
whether
or
not
it's
going
to
be
instrumentation
based
or
there's
going
to
be
a
consistent
way
of
doing
it.
So
hopefully
it
won't
let
this
block
this
br.
D
Nice,
yes
I'll,
also
take
a
look
at
the
experience.
E
I
don't,
I
don't
think
so,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up
because
they
they
had
re,
they
had
to
address
all
the
changes.
I
moved
from
draft
to
an
open
pr
and
I
was
hoping
we
could
get
some
more
get
a
second
reviewer
on
it.
Just
because
it's
been
open
for
a
while,
and
you
know
the
contributor
came
back,
and
so
if
someone
has
some
time
to
look
at
django
ascii
support
that
would
be.
That
would
be
awesome.
C
Yeah,
I
can
make
a
look
at
this.
Can
you
add
me
to
jury
versions.
E
B
E
I
I
don't
have
another
issue,
but
I
did
want
to
share
the
news
that
the
open,
telemetry
officially
applied
to
go
from
sandbox
to
incubation
with
the
cncf,
and
I
guess
it's
got
all
approvals
across
the
board.
So
that's
pretty
exciting.
I
don't
know
if
anybody's
been
following
this
or
not,
but
here
I'll
put
the
link
in
the
chat.
That's
the
the
vote
to
move
open
telemetry
to
incubate.
E
C
E
D
Well,
I
guess
if
anybody,
if
there
are
no
more
issues
or
comments,
we
can
call
this
done
this
week.
I
record
45
minutes
yeah,
we'll
hear
each
other
next
week.
Hopefully.