►
From YouTube: 2023-02-27 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry meeting-2's Personal Meeting Room
B
A
B
C
B
B
A
I
think
I
have
one.
One
question
is
about
the
next
release.
B
B
So
I
was
just
going
through
the
PRS
which
have
been
closed.
Anything
specifically,
which
is
something
which
huge.
B
B
Think
it's
good
to
have
a
release.
There
are
lots
of
new
changes.
At
least
we
are
doing
I
mean
there
are
lots
of
things,
at
least
in
the
current
PR,
which
it
goes.
That
would
be
good
enough.
At
least
there
are
a
lot
of
changes
in
the.
A
A
Yeah
I
think
so
maybe
we,
the
log
API,
will
change
that
to
a
little
bit
right
or.
A
B
Anyone
should
be
okay
with
this,
so
probably
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
if
it's
on,
if
you
want
to
chat
with
the
sound
or
because
he
this,
if
we
want
to
do
this
week,
then
I
think
either
either
of
us
have
to
do
it.
You.
A
C
B
A
B
A
B
Change
it
looks
like
a
very
small
thing
like
this
iterator,
so
I
think
it
should
be
any
one
of
us
can
just
review
it
and
complete
it.
B
Yeah
I
just
put
this
I,
don't
think
we
assign
it
and
then
you
can
just
delegate
all
apis
calls
of
grpc
to
the
look
this
yeah
this
one.
The
chain
looks
good
to
me.
I
just
want
to
test
it
with
alpine,
because
there
is
another
similar
issue
which
was
which
is
raised
with
for
the
fine,
so
just
wanted
to
test.
If
this
is
same
thing,
we
can
use
it
for
Alpine.
Also,
okay,
yeah.
That's
the
interesting
change.
I
think
I
didn't
realize
that
probably
the
symbols
are
not
getting
exported
in
a
given
life.
B
So
basically
it
is
Target
was
linking
directly
trying
to
link
grpc
Library
this
OTL
pgs
grpc
client
Target,
this
virtual
previous
music
client.
This
was
trying
to
link
grpc
library
with
it
and
it
was
getting
linked
properly
in
Ubuntu,
at
least
in
our
environment,
CI,
environment
and
whatever
environment.
We
test
yeah
but
I,
think
in
Alpine
and
in
some
other
in
some
other
scenarios
that
that
the
symbols
are
not
getting
exported.
B
A
B
C
B
A
B
A
So
this
is
a
fix
like
I.
Think
I
am
going
to
throw
it
quickly
in,
but
I
forgotten
the
details
in
the
fix
about
like
adding
explicit
reference
on
such
symbol
to.
A
C
B
Let's
review
it
once
I
mean
that's
what
I
could
make
out
that
it's
somehow
it's
ensuring
that
those
symbols
are
getting
included
in
this
line.
Maybe,
but
probably
I,
think
it
talks
about
in
the
description.
Also
yeah
delegate,
all
the
API
calls
of
grpc
into
this
and
make
it
contain
all
the
symbols
needed
so
I
think
now
this
library
is
making
all
the
API
calls
or
grpc
s.
A
So
is
this
Library?
Does
the
user
still
need
to
provide
grpc
Library
explicitly
like.
D
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
C
B
Team
roots
for
instrumentation
scope,
yeah
I,
think
I
had
a
very
major
issue:
I,
don't
know
whether
he
has
six
or
not
yeah,
he
is
fix
it
now.
This
is
something
I
think
we
have
to
keep
a
watch
on
these
kind
of
changes
now
in
this
I
have
seen
Owen
doing
this.
This
mistakes
quite
often
awesome,
even
even
if
it
is
SDK,
we
should
not.
If
it
is
SDK,
we
should
not
be
using
that
key
value.
I
travel
within
SDK.
B
We
should
be
directly
using
the
the
actual
I
mean
attribute
map,
so
I
can
show
you
in
instrumentation.
I
mean
like
in
this
is
the
SDK
code,
so
we
don't
need.
We
should
not
be
using
this.
This
kind
of
thing
here
this.
A
B
B
B
Yeah
now,
if
we
see
this
code
yeah,
if
you
see
this,
this
is
going
to
add,
create
my
all
the
overloaded
create
methods
yeah
create
create.
We
don't
need
actually
these
methods,
these
overloaded
methods,
create
three
methods,
overloaded,
just
to
ensure
that
we
we
can
take
all
kind
of
key
value
attributes.
It
can
be
a
STD
map
it
could,
it
could
be
just
an
initialization.
Is
to
that.
A
B
B
Which
which
actually
inherits
from
unordered
STD
map
sdd
unordered
map,
so
this
inherits
from
that.
So
we
don't
need
to
use
I.
C
B
On
this
and
add
Force
plus
here
also,
this
is
also
from
the
good
to
review.
It
I
think
the
change
is
required
because,
as
per
the
specs
course
plus
should
be
there,
the
exporter
should
Implement
Force
flash.
We
don't
do
it
because
till
now
our
exporters
did
not
require
it.
So
we
we're
not
doing
it,
but
I
think
the
async
exporter
does
need
to
force
flush
it
okay,
but
anyway,
irrespective
of
whether
we
need
or
not
at
least
the
method
should
be
so.
B
This
would
be
SDK
breaking
change
probably
this
weekend.
This
would
be
a
call
out
like
if
we
want
to
this
to
go.
If
this
is
going
in
the
the
next
release,
probably
we
can.
We
may
want
to
do
a
minor
version
bump
up
just
to
say
that
the
SDK
is
changed
and
we
are
adding
a
new
method
in
the
SGP
I.
Don't
know
what
you
think.
B
D
B
C
B
Should
not
be
I
mean
this
should
not
be
breaking
chain
in
the
sense
that
we
I.
B
So
I
mean
definitely
if,
if
the
libraries
are
using
us
using
it
as
a
shared
Library,
adding
a
new
virtual
method
should
be
okay.
Actually,
you.
B
A
B
B
Where
it
was
created
in
September,
I
think
after
our
release
yeah,
it
was
first
in
September,
I,
think,
okay,
and
once
this
added,
let's
see
okay,
this
was
added
in
July,
22
and
then
I.
Think,
probably
that's
the
reason
why
we
never
implemented
okay,
yes,
so
SDK
chain,
I,
think
we
can
increment
the
minor
version
I
mean
just
just
to
indicate
that
at
least
applications.
B
B
I
think
we
probably
as
a
part
of
our
the
release
notes.
We
have
to
mention
that
that
this
is
a
Avi
breaking
change
for
the
hdk
and
the
SDK
should
be
rebuilt.
So
any
like
any
application.
B
Your
code
will
not
work
just
by
I
mean
if
they
just
so,
they
have
to
rebuild.
They
have
to
relink
their
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
to
how
to
really
mention
that,
but
they
have
to
rebuild
their
application
to
use
the
new
SDK.
B
D
B
Like
so,
there
won't
be
any
problem,
it's
just
that
I
mean
the
the
problem
would
be
like
if
they,
if
they,
if
they
create
a
new
shared
library
for
the
for
the
SDK,
and
they
don't
they
don't
re-re-link
their
application
to
use
the
new
shared
Library.
They
still
they
have.
They
have
built
their
application,
assuming
that
linking
with
the
old
shared
libraries,
then
it
would.
It
will
crash
because
this.
A
B
Library-
and
there
will
be
some
they
would
be-
there
would
be
some
memory
memory
issues
and
it
will
crash
if
they
don't,
if
they
don't
reveal
their
application
to
use
the
new
shared
Library.
A
B
All
right
I
mean
it
would
be
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
probably
I'm
not
able
to
indicate
it
properly.
So
they
have
so.
This
is
like
they.
They
they
had
their
own
application,
which
is
using
pressure
provider
and
it
is
using
export
interact.
Exporter
also
I,
don't
know
how,
however,
it
is
doing
it,
it
acts
exporter,
and
then
this
is
using
sdk.dll.
Something
like
this
1.8.2.
B
And
they
built
this
application
when
they
built
this
application,
they
would
have
linked
it
also.
They
link
it
with
1.8.2.
Now
in
normal
scenarios
for
any
non-breaking
change,
they
can
just.
This
application
will
still
work
if
I
just
replace
this
SDK
file
with
Hotel
SDK
dot,
S2
v1.8.3
in
idle
case.
If
there
is
no
API
breaking
change,
I
don't
need
to
relink
my
I
don't
need
to
rebuild
or
re-link
my
application.
B
B
Later
yeah,
it
will
crash
later
yeah.
It
will
crash
later
so
whenever
whenever
the
call
to
the
exporter
would
be
happening
even
whenever
the
call
to
it
export
may
happen
just
because
the
the
probably
the
what
do
you
say
this
table
which
table
it
called
the
V
table,
would
have
paid
now.
So
this
exporter
method
may
not
be
called
properly
or
something
may
happen.
A
B
A
B
This,
so
you
know,
I
think
this.
This
will
at
least
I
mean
I.
Don't
know
this
should
not
I,
don't
know
whether
it
should
need
the
major
version
or
just
the
miner
is
okay
major.
Normally
we
do
it
whenever
the
EPA
change
is
there,
because
because
that
means
that
Avi
breaks,
that's
API
breaking
change
in
the
API,
but
this
is
kind
of
Avi
breaking
change
in
the
hdp
yeah.
A
A
C
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
Reason
is
when,
in
general,
it's
easy
for
the
users
to
rebuild
their
SDK,
it's
more
difficult
to
rebuild
their
instrumentation
libraries,
because
the
number
of
instrumentation
libraries
would
be
large.
But
the
applications
are
relatively
relatively
small
and
so
I
mean
the
count
of
the
number
of
applications
which
are
in
general,
small
in
size.
B
B
If
breaking
a
API
is
a
bigger
issue,
just
because
the
number
of
instrumentation
Library
can
be
in
count
of
the
instrumentation,
libraries
can
be
too
high.
I.
A
B
Because,
normally
for
API
I
think
the
following,
the
instrumentation
Library
can
would
be
built
by
a
given
given
vendor.
It
would
be
given
to
somebody
lost
a
given
application.
User
would
be
using
multiple
instrumentation
libraries,
so
they
don't
want
all
these
instrumentation
library
to
be
rebuilt,
but
it's
still
okay
for
them
to
rebuild
their
own
application
wherever
they
are
doing.
A
new
release
with
with
the
new
version
of
Hotel
CPP.
B
C
B
C
B
D
A
B
A
C
A
B
Well,
I
think
you
can
comment
it
here
in
this
yeah
or
create
a
new.
We
should
present
your
needs.
A
B
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
Is
kind
of
blocked
by
Mark,
so
Mark
is
saying
it
is
that
once
we
do
a
proper
cleanup
of
this
main
repo
by
removing
etw
and
elasticsearch,
then
I
think
people
think
about.
We
should
think
about
that.
Okay
and
I
think
I
was
I
was
thinking
about
that
before
it
is
easy
to.
It
won't
be
a
bigger
issue
for
this
to
remove
etw
from
the
main
report.
It.
A
B
I
mean
we
already.
We
already
have
a
wrapper
to
generate
the
new
cut
package
in.
A
A
B
So
would
be
easy
for
for
elasticsearch
I
think
it
would
be
easy
if
nobody
is
using
and
nobody
is
maintaining
I
think
we
can
just
take
the
complete,
probably
directory
from
you
know,
from
the
main
record
and
just
just
put
it
in
the
content
report.
Somebody
want
to
really
own
it.
C
B
A
B
Every
weekend
yeah,
you
can
check
with
I,
don't
know
what
was
the
name
of
that.
I
forgot,
the
name
of
that
in
them,
but
yeah
there
was
one.
There
was
one.
Oh,
she
already
left
I
think
amazing.
B
A
C
C
C
B
A
B
Okay,
okay,
let's
you
know
sorry,
we
have
I,
don't
see
any
new
issues
which
we
discussion
discussion
already.
We
saw
some
of
them
this
we
already
discussed
last
week.
This
also
be
discussed
last
week,
I
think
only
two
new
issues
was
raised.
This
already,
the
pr
is
there
a
lot
of
example
fields
and
this
one
I
created.
We
need
example.
C
B
Okay
and
let's,
let's
probably
Target
the
next
release
this
weekend,
yeah.
B
A
A
B
There
was
one
minor,
PR,
very
minor,
small
pixels,
that's
the
test
code.
I
also
I
mean
the
test
code
was
not
building
properly
because
we
changed
in
in
the
main
Depot.
We
had
changed
the
boundaries
to
to
use
STD
Vector,
not
this
to
be
used,
but
some
of
the
example
was
still
using
HTTP.
Okay,
so
as
part
of
that
I
also
added
the
CI
to
Cache
these
kind
of
trivial
issues,
the
build
issues.
B
Because
this
is
something
which
which
we
are
using
it
for
our
getting
our
CPU
and
memory
metrics.
This
is.
B
For
The
Benchmark,
this
is
something
you
have
been
using
it
and
we
have
similar.
We
have
similar
process
Matrix.
All
the
other
I
think
six
have
implemented
so
probably
I
think
you'll
have
to
finish
this
official
sometime.