►
From YouTube: 2022-01-13 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
Okay,
I
think
we
can
probably
get
started.
Amir
looks
like
you
put
the
first
item
on
here.
You
want
to
start.
A
Yeah
we're
we're
having
a
hard
time
hearing
you.
I
guess
it's
pretty
self-explanatory,
so
I
guess
I
can
take
it.
Should
we
deprecate
the
non-general
http
instrumentation
config
option,
ignore
incoming
paths
and
ignore
outgoing
urls.
A
This
is
because
we
are
adding
a
new
config
option
with
general
ignore
hooks
that
will
allow
you
to
ignore
requests
with
a
callback
that
receives
the
request
and
response
objects.
So
if
you
want
to
ignore
based
on
headers,
you
set
a
request
callback
and
you
check
for
the
header.
You
want
you
return
true
or
false,
to
pass
or
ignore.
A
A
Sounds
like
nobody
has
a
strong
opinion.
Maybe
if
that's
the
case
then
I
would
say.
Yes,
we
should
deprecate
the
old
options.
A
A
Does
anyone
you
know
maybe
ronno,
do
you
have
any
idea?
Are
there
other
packages
where
we
have
this
issue
where
we're
testing
two
major
versions
and
they
have
significant
code
differences.
C
I
don't
like
we
have,
maybe
winston
or
something
like
that-
that
implements
multiple
versions,
but
I
think
it's
more
of
a
more
of
a
situation
where,
where
the
developer,
who
contributed
those
weren't
aware
of
the
desktop
versions
way.
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
was
what
we
originally
what
we
suggested
to
this
person.
The
issue
is
that
there
is
code
in
the
plugin,
that's
specifically
for
version
3
compatibility
and
it
doesn't
show
up
in
the
coverage.
B
C
C
A
Okay,
so
I
guess
I'll
say
talked
about
this
in
the
sig.
We
recommend
test
the
latest
version
of
this.
C
Yeah
sure
the
only
thing
is
like
whether
we
want
to
make
an
exception
here
or
not.
I
would
I
would,
I
would
say
no,
but
since
mongol
4
is
quite
a
new
major
version
and
the
three-point
whatever
the
latest
was
is
still
at
this
point,
the
most
popular
do
we
want
to
hold
it
off
or
or
not.
C
A
C
Yeah
sure
will
be
annoyed
by
the
the
what's
the
what's,
the
bot
that
wants
to
update
all
the
dependencies.
A
Just
a
quick
item
I'll
be
gone
monday
and
tuesday
of
next
week,
I'll
be
back
for
the
sig
meeting.
Now
the
colors.js
is
pinned
to
1.4.0.
Thank
you.
Rono
for
doing
that.
We
currently
depend
on
it
through
karma
does
not
seem
like
the
developer
of
colors
is
likely
to
fix
it.
A
I'm
not
sure
how
karma
will
go
about
fixing
it,
whether
they'll
just
write
their
own
colors
script
or
a
fork
or
anything
like
that,
but
we're
not
even
on
the
latest
version
of
karma
right
now.
Our
browser
testing
frameworks
all
lag
a
little
bit
behind.
B
A
They,
when
we
try
to
update
them,
our
node
8
tests
tend
to
fail.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
do
we
keep
what
we
have
with
the
pinned
version
of
colors,
or
do
we
drop
support
for
node
8
and
update
all
of
those
modules,
or
is
there
some
third
option
that
I'm
not
thinking
of
here.
C
It
might
be
that
we
also
have
support
for
note
10,
because
note
10
is
quite
old
as
well
and
as
far
as
I've
I've
seen
some
dependent
dependencies
that
we
hold
back,
because
the
newer
versions
are
lacking.
Note
no
date
support.
It's
often
the
case
that
that
they
also
the
newest
versions,
also
like
the
support
from
note
10.
C
A
A
You
know
whether
you
call
it
an
end-to-end
test
or
an
integration
test,
or
something
like
that
that
actually,
you
know,
runs
nightly
so
an
application
that
consumes
open
telemetry
doesn't
have
to
build
it
or
anything
like
that
and
see.
If,
if
that
causes
issues.
A
Because
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
experience
with
deciding
when
to
drop
support
for
older
versions,
but
it
seems
like
at
least
note
8
is,
is
starting
to
cause
us
some
problems.
A
Last
I
checked
when
we
tried
to
update
karma
and
webpack.
I
didn't
think
that
node
10
was
causing
troubles
at
that
point,
but
the
maybe
different
case
now.
E
A
Okay,
I'll
I'll,
create
an
issue
for
it.
I
think
we
should
at
least
consider
dropping
at
least
node
eight.
I
know
I
don't
think
karma
has
updated
to
fix
the
color
js
issue
yet,
but
when
they
do
we're
not
gonna
get
their
fix,
so
there's
probably
a
long
line
of
other
fixes.
We
also
haven't
gotten
since
we
can't
update
those
things.
So
I
think
it's
something
that
we
should
consider.
A
G
I
do
have
a
pr
that
started
failing
after
it
was
updated
with
the
latest
main,
but
maybe
it
seems
to
be
updated
again.
G
C
There
has
been
quite
a
few-
I
will
jump
in
here,
because
I've
done
many
fixes
to
the
ci.
Lately
the
cassandra
issues
were
actually
due
to
the
github
services
not
being
configured
properly.
That's
now
fixed.
C
G
Cool
yeah,
I
think
I
think
the
problem
is
this.
Pr
is
probably
a
little
up
the
last
time
it
was
synced
with
main
it
probably
had
the
issues.
I
think
it
just
seems
to
be
like
resynced
and
probably
rerun,
and
it
will
be
in
good
shape
so
we'll
give
that
a
try
and
if
things
don't
work
out
I'll
I'll,
just
make
a
comment
here.
What's
happening.
A
Okay,
I
added
this
item
here.
It's
really,
we
don't
need
to
go
through
everything.
I
was
just
trying
to
list
generally
what
people
are
working
on
right
now.
This
is
just
what
I
could
come
up
with
off
the
top
of
my
head
from
the
last
week
or
so
so,
if
anybody
has
anything
to
add
here
for
themselves,
they
can
feel
free,
but
it's
really
just
to
keep
everybody
aware
of
the
of
the
work.
That's
ongoing.
A
I
do
want
to
talk
about
the
1.1
release,
so
we
have
one
pr:
that's
already
been
merged
to
define
the
common
attributes
type
and
we
have
two
that
we've
kind
of
already
agreed
we're
going
to
wait
for
for
the
release.
A
There
are
three
additional
prs
on
the
api
repo
that
I
think
we
should
consider.
So
I
want
to
go
through
each
of
them
and
decide
whether
we
want
to
wait
for
them.
Wait
when
you
hold
the
release
for
them
or
whether
we
should
wait
for
1.2
for
those,
so
the
first
one
is
attach
and
detach
methods
on
the
context
api.
A
This
is
something
we've
had
requests
for
in
the
past,
although
not
as
much
recently.
I
think
the
reason
we
haven't
heard
about
this
recently
is
not
because
people
don't
want
it,
but
just
because
people
are
tired
of
asking,
I
started
working
on
this
a
while
ago,
but
it
has
really
become
quite
stale.
We
haven't
done
very
much
work
on
it
in
the
last
few
months.
A
B
I
reviewed
it
a
long
time
ago
when
it
was
published,
and
I
think
that
the
current
way
that
it's
implemented
is
not
so
useful
to
solve
the
problems
that
people
complain
about,
and
I
wrote
some
examples
on
the
pr,
but
I
will
be
happy
if
we
can
like
take
few
examples
of
people
that
they
want
to
solve
with
this
feature
and
make
sure
that
it's
actually
solves
them.
Because
from
what
I
understood,
I'm
not
so
sure
that
the
answer
is
yes,
okay,
we
can
talk
about
it.
D
A
D
A
Okay,
I'll
go
through
your
comments
here.
I
remember
seeing
them
when
you
made
them,
but
I
don't
remember
them
that.
Well
so
I'll
go
through
them
this
afternoon,
I
guess
for
now.
We
should
probably
not
hold
the
release
for
this
pr,
though,
because
it
may
still
have
some
some
questions.
A
A
There
were
some
comments,
but
no
reviews
on
it.
Is
this
a
feature
that
we
want
to
try
to
nag
this
author,
or
should
we
leave
it
alone?
For
now,
does
anyone
have
a
need
for
the
prefix
option
currently.
H
I
the
way
it's
coded,
I
don't
think,
is
there
a
correct
way
to
do
it?
Yeah,
like
looking
at
your
comments,
which
I
agree
with
it's
it's
just
gonna
set
the
global,
prefix
and
everything's
gonna
be
the
same.
It's
not
gonna
do
anything.
So
it's
if
we're
going
to
do
it.
I
don't
think
it's
just
pr.
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
more
of
like
a
process
prefix
than
a
component
prefix,
and
I
agree,
I
think
a
component
is
exactly
significantly
more
useful.
Okay.
I
guess
I
would
say,
let's
not
hold
that
one
either
and
this
next
one,
I
believe,
is
a
draft
pr
yeah.
It
is,
I
made
it
a
month
ago.
I
have
not
finished
the
tests
on
it
yet
and
have
not
really
looked
for
reviews
because
it's
been
a
draft,
but
I
don't
think
it
would
take
very
long
for
me
to
get
this
in
a
reviewable
state.
A
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
that
the
issue
is
that
this
came
up,
I
believe,
because
a
user
did
not
yet
have
the
sdk
configured
and
was
trying
to
debug
issues.
A
Yeah
this
was
kind
of
a
while
ago,
so
I
don't
remember
it
that
well,
I
guess
I
will
try
to
get
this
finished
in
time
for
the
release,
but
if
it
doesn't,
if
we
can't
get
it
before
the
release,
then
I
won't
worry
too
much
about
it.
I
don't
think
we'll
hold
the
release
for
it,
but
we're
already
waiting
for
two
other
pr's.
A
Okay,
the
rest
of
the
agenda
here
is
really
just
a
link
dump.
I
put
new
new
issues
and
pr's
that
have
been
created
since
the
last
meeting
and
the
same
prs
and
issues
that
we
had
at
the
previous
meeting,
just
with
the
ones
that
have
been
merged
and
closed
removed
and
a
couple
of
new
ones
added.
A
So
really
these
are
just
here
to
remind
people
to
to
review
them,
and
I
don't
have
anything
specific
to
say
about
any
of
these.
A
If
anybody
wants
to
talk
about
one
of
these,
I'm
happy
to
to
give
them
time
to
talk
about
it.
Now.
A
Okay,
if
it
sounds
like
nobody
really
does
so,
please
just
review
these
prs.
Particularly
metric
prs,
as
I
always
say,
are,
are
high
priority.
A
But
beyond
that
we'd
like
to
review
as
much
as
possible
as
quickly
as
possible,
that
was
all
I
had
on
the
agenda.
Is
there
anything
else
that
that
anybody
would
like
to
bring
up?
We
have
about
a
half
an
hour
left.
A
Okay,
then,
I
guess
everybody
have
a
good
week
and
I
will
talk
to
you
next
wednesday.