►
From YouTube: 2021-05-25 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
C
A
A
I
added
the
badge
back,
don't
know
why
it
is
still
showing
us
failing
it's
very
weird:
it's
it's
made
sure
the
tag.
The
badge
is
targeting
the
main
branch,
so
it
should
have
been
green,
because
this
is
the
last
built
from
main
branch
yeah.
I
have
to
see
like
why
it
is
not
behaving
the
way
we
want
it.
A
Oh
okay,
I
think
we
are
not
building
it
on
much.
That's
probably
why?
Okay
I'll
take
a
look
in
case.
Anyone
noticed
like
we.
We
bought
back
the
build
badges
after
a
long
gap,
because
there
is
an
ask
from
the
open
elementary
community
that,
like
we
should
have.
We
didn't
hold
reports,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
add
it
back.
We
had
some
issues
with
this
in
the
past
it
looks
like
we
still
have
some
issues
so
yeah
I'll.
Take
a
look:
okay,
yeah!
A
I
think
we
can
start
now
very
small
legendary
today,
so
I'll
go
over
the
items
which
I
have
added.
A
So
one
of
the
action
items
from
maybe
a
few
weeks
back
was
to
automate
the
contributor
publishing
to
include
nuget,
publish
also
as
part
of
the
workflow,
so
that
is
now
done.
I
haven't
validated
it
and
like
prashanth
from
aws,
will
be
doing
an
aws
release.
Today
he
said
he
will
volunteer
to
like,
while
late
that
the
new
get
published
is
automated,
so
the
actual
process.
Now
is
you
just
pick
the
tag
you
want
to
push
and
you
just
push
it
all.
A
The
admins
have
access
once
you
push
it,
it
triggers
the
workflow
which
builds
the
package
following
the
tag
which
you
just
pushed
and
publishes
the
package
directly
to
nougat,
and
we
did
not
have
any
myget
daily
builds
earlier
and
we
don't
have
it
even
now.
So
if
there
is
a
need
that
we
need
to
have
a
daily
publish
daily
bills
or
daily
packages
to
migrate,
just
like
the
main
repo,
we
can
add
it
back,
but
given
that
there
is
very
low
activity
in
the
cornrow
before
I'll,
just
keep
it
that
way.
A
So,
if
anyone
really
wants
they
can
use,
they
can
build
it
themselves
or
wait
for
the
thing
to
go
and
you
get.
A
Okay-
and
there
are
like
few
pr's
in
country
report,
waiting
to
get
tribute
folks
were
asking
for,
like
ef
entity
framework
instrumentation
in
private
messages
for
last
two
three
weeks.
I
need
some
help.
Reviewing
these
prs.
The
instrumentation
itself
is
good
for
entity
framework.
Sorry,
I
think,
when
I
say
ef,
I
really
mean
entity
framework.
A
A
So
if
anyone
has
cycles,
please
go
and
take
a
look
at
these
pr's
very
minor
one,
just
rearranging
things
so
that
the
ci
correctly
captures
the
test
and
also
to
make
sure
the
test
projects
that
there
is
a
common
test
and
common
shared
project.
One
is
for
test
components
being
shared
and
one
is
for
actual
product
components.
So
I'm
now
separating
it
into
two
separate
projects
like
this.
So
the
reason
is,
we
don't
want
the
we
don't
want
to
force
anyone
to
take
a
sdk
dependency
when
they
refer
to
the
shared
project.
A
So
right
now
the
shared
project
does
not
have
I
mean
it
still
has
the
open
elementary
dependency,
but
I
will
be
removing
it
as
a
follow-up
to
this
one.
The
first
step
is
just
to
split
out
the
shared
project
into
product
code
and
test
code,
so
this
is
just
doing
that.
So
please
take
a
look
approve
it.
It
should
be
like
very
cute,
so
that
will
unblock
me
from
releasing
the
entity
framework
instrumentation,
but
there
are
still
few
other
pr's
which
really
need
reviewers.
A
Mostly
there
is
a
instrumentation
for
mysql.
There
is
an
exporter
for
elastic
elasticsearch
exporter
for
activity,
so
those
require
some
reviews.
So
if
any
of
you
are
interested
in
or
has
knowledge
about
this
just
take
a
look,
I
will
be
sharing
my
comments
based
on,
like
general,
open,
telemetry
principle,
whether
they're
doing
the
right
things,
but
I
don't
have
any
like
domain
expertise
about
elastic
epm.
A
A
That
ends
my
topic
so
victor,
I
I
think
at
least
you
are
unblocked
from
the
dot
net
six
build,
which
is
an
improvement
but
yeah.
Sorry,
I
didn't
have
much
time
to
actually
do
the
review,
which
will
be
done
like
very
soon
now.
D
Yeah
sure
so
I've
just
a
quick
update
on
on
things,
so
I
put
in
the
pr2053
about
a
week
now
so
some
people
I've
gotten
a
bunch
of
folks
to
do
reviews,
but
obviously
the
more
reviewers
the
better.
The
intention
of
this
is
to
essentially
put
in
an
initial
framework
to
have
aggregators
on
the
pipeline,
so
it
you
know
so
I
gotten
mikhail
at
his
approval
for
it.
D
So
the
question
to
the
sig
is:
who
else
would
be
interested
in
continuing
to
do
the
the
review
and-
and
if
and
you
know,
depending
how
many
we
get
and
who's
interested,
then
the
timing
in
terms
of
when
we
should
then
merge
when
it's
ready
to
the
metrics
branch.
D
So
that's
an
open
question
for
the
sig
okay,
soon
after
the
when
we
do
get
2053
merged
in
then
the
follow-up
pr
for
that
is
to
a
smaller
pr
to
swap
over
to
usingthe.net
6
preview
that
cjo
mentioned.
There
is
actually
a
pr
out
there
for
that.
Also
so,
depending
on
the
logistics
we
could,
we
might
just
still
use
that
one
or
we
might
create
a
different
one,
but
that's
just
basically
to
swap
it
out
to
use
the
net
six
preview
for
the
api
portion.
D
Then
there's
some
outcomes
of
exit
of
the
people,
who've
done
the
review
for
2053..
I
have
these
two
other
issues
filed,
and
so
I
I'm
looking
forward
to
you
know
maybe
other
people
chiming
in
on
those
two
potential
issues
and
and
depending
on
where
we
land
on
those
we'll
probably
just
have
prs
associated
with
to
address.
You
know
each
of
these
issues
as
needed
if
we
want
to
so
so.
That's
my
update.
D
Oh
sorry,
one
last
thing
and
then
assuming
some
of
these
things
get
through
it's
talking
to
riley
a
little
bit,
then
the
next
set
of
quote
framing
that
we
would
ideally
like
to
do
is
to
put
in
something
for
the
view
api
or
the
view
sdk
portion
or
something
along
that
line
which
I'll
still
have
to
work
with
riley
and
figure
out
the
details
of
some
of
that
stuff.
But
that's
kind
of
probably
the
next
step.
A
Yeah
so
like
I,
I
will
do
my
review
later
today
and
by
tomorrow
morning.
Let's
try
to
target
merging
it
by
tomorrow,
because
I
think,
like
michael,
did
a
good
look
at
it.
So
that's
a
good
validation.
A
I
will
follow
up
tomorrow
and
we
want
to
make
sure
like
we
get
the
net
bits
at
the
earliest,
so
that
if
we
find
any
issues
we
should
let
them
know,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
like
we
catch
the
dotnet
train,
so
yeah
I
will
be
doing
a
review
by
tonight
or
tomorrow
morning
and
we
can
target
to
merge
it
by
tomorrow.
A
Like
all
these
issues,
which
you
are
saying
like
opening
like
as
part
of
the
discussion,
they
are
all
like
optimizations
and
do
you
expect
us
to
do
anything
I
mean?
Do
you
expect
that
any
change
would
be
required
from
the
dotnet
team?
If
not,
we
can
like
come
back
to
it
like
really
late
after
we
are
done
with
everything
else,
just
to
make
sure
we
focus
initially
on
making
sure
the
api.
The
thing
which
dotnet
gives
is
good
enough
for
us
to
build
an
sdk.
D
Yeah,
so
that
the
two
issues
are
that
they're,
not
it's
they're,
not
mandatory,
I
think
they're,
you
know
potential,
you
know
design
changes
or
optimization
on
design,
so
they're,
not
that
they're
not
immediately
needed
to
have
the
the
metric
stuff
work,
but
you
know,
but
there
may
be
an
improvement
on
design.
So
we
should.
A
Discuss
no
question
is
to
address
that.
Do
we
need
support
from
the
dotnet
api
or
no.
E
A
D
Correct
and
see
joe,
if
you
find
that
if
you
find
that
we,
if
we
have
more
people
who
wants
to
review
the
the
aggregator
portion,
we
can,
if
you
deem
it
important,
we
could
swap
the
order
and
we
could
put
in
the
net
preview
in
before
the
aggregator,
but
then
not
sh.
Yeah
I
mean
we
could
do
that
if
you
want.
A
And
people
still
have
opinions
about
like
improving
aggregator
or
anything.
It
can
all
happen
afterwards.
It's
absolutely
fine!
So
don't
worry
about
that.
Okay,
yeah
and
like
hopefully
once
like
this
pr
is
merged.
We
can
like
sit
together
and
try
to
like
figure
out
a
plan
for
splitting
the
overall
work
and
to
allow
like
other
people,
to
participate
and
make
progress
in
parallel.
I
think
allen.
Oh
alan
is
already
in
the
code.
Yeah
allen
also
expressed
interest
that
you'd
be
interested
in
working
on
instrumentation
and
the
otp
exporter
part.
A
So
once
we
like
figure
out
the
framing,
then
we
can
create
issues
and
let
people
work
somewhat
and
also
along
with
the
sdk
spec,
which
is
being
worked
on
by
rayleigh,
so
hopefully
by
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
we'll
have
like
that
wiring
ready
and
we
should
be
able
to
create
issues
and
to
send
it
to
people
and
see
if
there
is
anyone
else
who
wants
to
participate.
F
Your
pr
tomorrow,
but
by
no
means
I
mean
it,
looks
like
it's
gotten
a
pretty
thorough
review
and,
as
he
just
said,
you
know
it's
being
merged
to
the
metrics
branch.
So
I
don't
see
a
reason
to
hold
up
too
much,
but
I
I
should
have
some
cycles
tomorrow.
Just
to
orient
myself
it'll
be
good
because
you
know
I
see
just
that.
I'm
gonna
aim
to
ramp
up
on
some
metrics
work
along
with
you
guys
so.
A
All
right,
yeah,
I
don't
have
anything
else
in
the
agenda.
Oh
yeah,
I
do
want
to
discuss
one
more
thing,
so
we
want
to
add
utkarsh
as
an
approver.
So
if
no
one
objects,
I
will
mark
the
pr
approach.
A
But
technically
it's
supposed
to
be
reviewed
by
all
other
maintainers
and
approvers
and
unfortunately
we
only
have
a
ln
in
today's
course,
so
it
looks
like
I'll
have
to
reach
out
to
others
individually.
So
I
already
spoke
to
michael
he's,
fine
and
we
need
to
see
if
I
can
get
a
hold
of
mike
I'll
comment
asking
for
other
people's
opinion.
If
no
objections
in
the
next
one
day
or
two
I'll
just
merge
it
and
I'll
do
the
like
permissions
issues
and
everything.
A
Okay,
that's
shitty
match.
Okay.
I
think
there
is
one
follow-up
which
reminded
me
when
I
spoke
about
utkarsh
sukkas.
Do
you
want
to
have
a
like
quick
update
about
the
multi-targeting?
It's
not
a
final
update,
but
at
least
since
you
already
spoke
to
the
dotnet
team
about
it.
A
Do
you
want
to
share
like
a
update
which
would
okay,
we
have
a
long
list
of
vrs
and
we
were
trying
to
follow
up
with
the
dotnet
team
on
getting
the
right
way
of
exposing
the
public
api
in
a
uniform
way,
whether
it
is.net
framework
or
net
core?
And
this
pr-
and
there
is
an
associated
pr-
both
are
being
blocked
just
to
wait
for
a
update
from
like
an
official
update
from
dot
net
team.
So
has
some
update.
So
if
you
want,
you
can
go
ahead
and
share
that
now.
C
Yeah
so
like
the
the
ideal
recommendation
from
them
is
to
just
like
have
the
same
signature,
regardless
of
whatever
platform.
It
is
so
the
branded
framework
netcode
led
standard.
All
of
them
have
the
same
api
signature.
If
not,
they
suggest
that
we
have.
We
still
have
the
same
function,
same
methods
available,
but
if
they
are
not
applicable
on
that
on
a
particular
platform,
then
they
just
don't
do
anything
so
like
a
no
op,
they
either
throw
an
exception
or
they
don't
do
anything,
but
still
have
that
and
so
like.
C
If
we
have,
let's
say
like
some
legacy
method
in
the
net
framework,
but
not
in
net
core,
we
would
want
to
have
it
in
net
core
as
well
and
not
do
anything
when
it's
called
on
net
core
yeah.
A
I
think
they
are
introducing
a
new
like
tool
to
help
us
validate
these
kind
of
issues,
because
these
are
these
issues
don't
show
up
in
comparison
with
only
like
show
plus
method
missing
exception
in
runtime.
So
it's
still
like
a
draft,
so
I
don't
know
whether
it's
shareable,
but
if
anyone
wants
they
can
take
a
look
at
the
dotnet
sdk
repo.
A
I
think
I
can
share
the
link
here.
It's
it's
not
internal
or
anything,
so
you
can
take
it
still
draft
very
draft,
so,
okay,
whatever
ruth
kushner
started,
would
be
like
formalized
and
then
we
can
use
this
argument
and
decide
like
close
on
these
issues,
which
has
been
waiting
in
our
ripper
for
quite
some
time
and
most
likely
we'll
try
to
add
this
tooling.
A
But
I
think
there
are
some
issues
with
this
tool
and
there
is
another
tool
which
was
trying
to
onboard
to
the
apa
combat
one.
It's
it's
still
preview
like
there
is
no
like
official
version
released
anywhere,
it's
most
likely
part
of
dot
net
six.
So
maybe
we'll
leave
with
some
manual
validations
for
now
and
make
it
as
part
of
official
ci
when
dotnet
team
makes
it
officially
like
make
it
available
in
nougat.
So
yeah,
that's
just
a
follow-up
update
from
last
week's
discussion.
So
I'll
paste
the
question
here
and
appear.
A
A
And
I'll
make
sure
I
link
the
related
issue.
A
A
Okay,
if
any
other
questions
to
be
like
discussed,
I
I
really
want
to
ask
everyone
to
spend
like
a
little
bit
of
time
to
look
at
that
contribute
and
like
approve
prs,
it's
the
pr
support
like
elasticsearch
or
oh
yeah.
Alan
already
did
that
or
mysql
it
may
require
some
domain
knowledge,
but
the
one
which
I'm
asking
like
quick
help
is
just
like
rearranging
things
so
that,
like
the
ca,
is
unblocked
that
will
unlock
the
release
of
like
entity
framework
instrumentation,
which
is
already
merged
like
a
month
back.
A
A
Okay,
all
right
any
other
questions.
If
not,
we
can
end
early
and
meet
again
next
week.