►
From YouTube: 2023-03-13 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry meeting-2's Personal Meeting Room
B
C
D
C
C
Okay,
remove
a
new
sport,
header
files
and
use
power
declaration
when
the
message
is
necessary-
and
this
is
still
in
draft
but
I
think
this
is
a
good
initiative.
I
mean
would
be
a
difficult
job.
Hopefully
he's
able
to
do
it,
but
yeah
I
mean
it
will
take
I
think
it
looks
like
it
will
take
lots
of
iteration
to
really
have
more
cleaner
header
inclusions.
C
E
This
one,
it
is
I'm
ready,
I
should
Mark
it
as
ready
for
review
yeah,
because
when
I
started,
I
I
was
thinking
about
whether
we
missed
the
attribute
for
some
other
classes.
Yeah
seems
this
is
one
for
long.
So
far,
I
got
so.
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
Which
makes
sense
till
we
until
till
till
it
till
this,
is
there
in
specs
notification.
C
Just
fine
yeah
and
add
Mark
as
a
maintainer,
yeah
I,
don't
see
any
comments
coming
here.
Probably
I
was
looking
for
more
comments
on
this
and
I.
Don't
see
him
in
Hassan
in
terms
is
free
to
add
your
comment
on
this
I
mean
and
Pages
Mark
just
wanted
to
check
with
you
like.
Do
you
see
any
concerns,
as
of
now
I
mean
being
as
a
mentor
either
approval,
and
do
you
feel
that
there
are
some
things
which
probably
as
I
meant
I
mean
we
are
kind
of
not
I?
C
Will
some
agreement
conflict
or
something
which
probably
you
feel
that
as
a
maintainer,
you
will
do
resolve
it
with
probably,
as
of
now
you're
having
some
bottle
like
on
those
bits,
I
mean
the
question
was
like:
do
you
see
any
conflict
as
of
no
I
mean
you've
been
together.
B
C
You
know
I
mean
just
wanted
to
check
your
motivation
for
being
as
a
mandator.
That
was
my
question.
Actually
I
mean
it's
about
something
that
as
a
approver,
you
felt
it
is
something
you're.
It's
kind
of
blocking
some
of
the
stocks,
which
probably
would
have
been
more
faster,
I
mean
you
being
at
the
maintainer.
You.
B
C
B
One
thing
is
just
for
daily
activities
like
merging
code,
for
example,
you
are
both
in
the
in
the
U.S
time
zone
and
asan
is
in
Europe.
So.
C
B
Being
in
Europe
also,
that
will
be
more
fluent
to
merge
code
so
that
we
don't
have
to
wait
so
much
if
some
Pi
is
approved,
for
example,
so
for
daily
activities
like
that,
another
thing
will
be
to
make
releases,
I
mean
so
far.
It's
only
the
three
of
you
will
make
any
reasons
and
in
my
understanding,
I
need
some
some
privileges
to
actually
do
a
release,
but
today
I
cannot
help
with
that.
So.
C
C
I,
don't
think
that
we
there
should
be
any
problem
for
you.
If
there
is
any
permission,
probably
we
can
definitely
add
you,
as
some
as
one
I
mean
one
of
the
contributors,
you
can
do
a
release,
I
mean
if,
if
that's
one
of
the
merge
I
don't
I
mean
I
feel
probably
at
least
if
we
have
somebody
in
the
Europe
time
zone
and
somebody
in
in
U.S
time
zone
and
unless,
until
the
merge
there
are
some
PRS
which
are
not
getting
merged.
Because
of
this
time
zone
issues,
probably
we
can
look,
but.
C
Don't
see
any
issue
that
why
you
should
not
be
able
to
release
it
if
there
is
any
permission
which
requires
stuff
really
to
be
given
to
you,
I
mean
that's
totally
fine
to
provide.
C
Was
that
my
main
concern
was
that
if
there
are
lots
of
active
maintenance
in
just
one
approver
that
somehow
disturbs
the
balance,
that
was
the
only
concern
I
had
not
that
who
should
be
maintainer
and
who
should
not
be.
It
was
more
coming
from
that
perspective,
one
of
the
options
which
I
felt
was
I
mean
probably
giving
it
a
thought
that
was
if
we
can
have
a
rotation
being
a
maintainer
again,
that's
not
very
healthy
to
have
a
rotation
just
because
there
are
aspirations.
C
Correct
aspiration,
even
though
for
people
to
have
maintainer-
and
we
start
doing
the
quotation-
will
not
be
a
right
thing.
Other
option
could
be
if
we
have
some
kind
of
voting
to
see
if
everybody
is
fine
to
have
this
kind
of
balance
like
there
are
say,
four
maintainers
are
having
one.
Only
one.
One
approver
shown
one
active
approval,
which
is
shown
if,
if
we
can
have
some
kind
of
voting
for
that,
I
mean
that
that
also
that
could
be
one
of
the
Choice
which
we
can
have
option.
You
can
have.
E
C
E
Yeah
I
have
one
question:
I
think
for
for
Mark
I.
Think
I'm
wondering
like
do
you
have
me
interested
like
to
like
to
work
on
more
like
other
than
traces
like
logs
or
Matrix
or
such
stuff?.
B
So
currently
I'm
working
mostly
on
from
a
functional
point
of
view,
I'm
working
on
traces,
because
this
is
what
I
depend
on
I'm,
soon
going
to
work
on
on
metrics,
also
because
I.
This
is
what
I'm
consuming
internally.
B
B
From
that
also
a
lot
of
things
like
having
a
clean,
build,
having
a
cmake,
magnified
cleanup
things
like
that
orthogonal
activities
that
needs
to
be
done.
There
is
one
thing
that
could
my
interest,
which
is
we.
We
know
that
we
will
have
ABI
changes
so
that
part
alone
it
will
mean
to
to
Define
how
we
can
do
an
ABA
change,
or
do
we
support
multiple
apis
at
the
same
time,
things
like
that.
E
E
C
C
E
C
B
For
releases
I've
not
tried
to
do
one
so
I,
don't
know
if
any
special
privilege
is
required
or
not,
but
I
was
looking
to
to
share
a
load
so
that
it's
not
the
same
people
who
do
the
release
all
the
time.
C
E
A
A
I
know
engine
kubernetes
Engineers
report.
They
are
doing
this.
A
C
A
A
Generates
all
these
release
notes
from
from
change,
log
and
and
some
field
in
the
pr
description.
You
add
this
release
note
to
the
pr
description:
if
anyone
wants
the
APR
to
be
shown
in
in
the
release,
notes
and
and
everything
is
just
done
automatically.
E
For
the
automate,
automated
part,
I
think
there
may
be
a
small
thing
we
can
do
is
like
force
HPR
to
update
the
changelog
yeah.
Currently
I
think
that
part
needs
some
manual
cleanup,
usually
for
others
yeah.
We
have
scripts
right.
So
if
we
can,
we
start
to
do
that.
B
E
Yep
yeah
that
could
be
an
issue
Auto
merge,
then
work.
A
This
sorry,
this
this
automated
process
in
the
nginx
report-
they
they
also
have
this
like
the
change
log,
is
also
generated.
I
mean
modified
based
on
the
PRS,
from
release
to
release.
A
E
E
C
E
D
C
Yeah,
we
can
definitely
have
a
rotation
and
ensure
that
Mark
is
one
of
the
maintainers
I
mean
at
least
at
least
have
the
access
for
the
release,
creating
the
release
as
a
maintenance.
I
think
it's
probably
I
still
want
more
comments
on
what
what
exactly
other
maintainers
feel
that
how
should
we
handle
this
right?
It's.
C
C
I
mean
motivation,
is
not
something
affected
because
of
these
things,
that's
also
probably
one
of
the
things
to
ensure
the
way.
It's
just
a
role.
It's
not
something
that
maintainers
are
doing
anything
extra,
then
approvers,
apart
from
release,
management
and
I.
Think
you
are
your
concerns,
are
definitely
hurt,
I
mean
Mark
as
an
approver
I
mean
you
rightly
would
be.
Definitely
work
in
general,
even
as
a
pro
or
ethical
concern
would
be
always
good
and
appreciated.
E
C
D
C
A
C
D
C
C
A
C
C
Delegate
or
API
calls.
This
is
interview,
yeah
I.
Think
probably
you
have
to
review
this.
So
there
are
two
PRS
which
has
to
be
reviewed
from
ovent,
delegate
or
API
calls
and
add
post
plus
to
all
this
I'll
try
to
review
today.
I
don't
have
very
much
confidence
on
this
or
proper
understanding
of
how
it
is
fixing
it.
So
probably,
yes,.
C
Yeah
none
of
them
this
is,
it
could
be
SDK
breaking
SDK
API
breaking
chain.
Ports
are
exporters
when
you
put
log
I
think
this
is
not
for
loss,
but
for
foreign.
C
And
this
is
should
see
okay.
This
should
not
be
any
relationship
in
this,
but.
C
I'll
want
to
review
this
one
first
before
doing
this
so
yeah
at
least
okay.
This
I
think
you
don't
have
any
change
on
this.
You
can
just
keep
it
same
for
this.
C
Yeah,
this
is
I,
think
probably
I'll,
maybe
close
this
PR
and
reopen
it
once
the
changes
which
are
requested,
at
least
for
the
stock,
which
should
be
going
to
contact
report.
If
we
can
meet
that
otherwise,
I'll
close
it
I
think
these
are
the
varied
concerns.
C
C
C
E
E
In
this
one,
this
should
not
be
the
latest
inside
here
three
days
ago,
yeah,
the
top
of
the
screen
just
to
move
it
away,
go
to
the
pr
the
forward,
I
think
forward.
C
E
E
D
C
E
D
D
C
This
week-
or
maybe
at
this
part
of
next
week,
I'll
be
probably
doing
the
review,
but
let's
I
don't
want
to
stretch
it
for
a
long
time,
we'll
do
it.
It
is
by
you,
after
reviewing
the
two
pairs
per
moment,
I'll
work
on
this
and
review
it,
but
thanks
for
this
PR
I
think
it
is.
Definitely
it
was
something
long
long
pending
from
our
side.
C
I
think
I
created
three
issues
for
login
printed
for
log
for
cx6
law.
Spd
login
log
for
CPP
I
feel
free
to
create
any
other
issue.
If
you
I
mean
I,
I,
see
I
create
just
so
few
of
the
logging
Frameworks,
whichever
Frameworks
were
supporting
extending
the
their
API
supported
to
extend
their
apis
to
write
to
a
specific
targets
or
ADD
appended
and
all
this
stuff
I
created
for
them.
But
if
there
is
any
other
framework
which
probably
is
missing,
it's
commonly
used
missing
feel
free
to
add
this.
A
A
D
C
C
B
E
C
B
C
D
A
C
C
C
C
C
This
built
area
and
I
did
comment
on
that.
Probably
let
him
get
back
to
it's.
Probably
the
exporter
build
this
feeling
and
the
reason.
D
C
So
probably
I
think
I
told
that
they
have
to
duplicate
it
should
not
be
including,
but
that
shows
one
thing
that
at
least
in
Homebrew
somebody
is
bringing
this
package
I'm,
not
sure
who
is
doing
that,
but
this
package
is
right
now
as
part
of
company,
also
so
on
Mac
cuttings.
Probably
if
you
do
do
you
install
open
terrible,
you
should
be
able
to
get
it.
C
C
C
Yeah,
okay,
it's
I
added
to
more
issues
for
instrumentation
scope.
Attributes
should
be
handled
now
in
meter
provided
in
Tracer,
provided
also,
which
means
that
this
would
be
Avi
breaking
change
and
probably
you
have
to
take
it
as
part
of
other
consolidate
all
the
eBay
between
changes
in
a
different
release.
And
what
do
you
have
it.
C
C
B
Just
some
comment
here:
so
if
someone
sets
Global,
login
or
and
then
write
code,
when
a
trace
provider
is
not
done,
refreshing
things,
that's
a
tread
down.
It's
it
still
can
write
some
some
log
messages,
even
even
late,
so
it
could
be
that
some
logs
are
written
very
late
in
the
in
the
test
case.
B
In
this
case,
people
should
probably
remove
the
log
and
learn
when
they
are
done
so
that
we
don't
have
late
printf
on
on
video
render,
and
the
second
part
is
if
this
guy
is
doing
some
multi-folded
tests
and
testing
things
in
parallel.
It's
not
going
to
work
well
with
the
global
Singleton.
So
in
that
case
it's
the
test
logic,
but
cannot
be
executing
tests
in
parallel
in
multiple
files
and
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
about
that.
C
C
C
This
is
blocked.
This
is
probably
I
want
to
Target
with
the
the
pr
which
event
has
raised
yeah,
it's
already
the
PSI.
This
is
already
the
pr
is
made
by
the
own
field,
enable.
C
Sdk
this
this
is
already
yeah
it's
there
and
the
issue
is
created.
We
have
to
know
that
tool
to
detect
API
ebi.
This
is
only
markets.
We
do.
C
C
C
E
C
Yeah
we
won't
have
to.
We
don't
need
to
split
p-class.
C
C
E
C
E
D
C
C
So
user
facing
will
be
totally
different.
Now
we
may
want
to
bring
it
as
part
of
probably
a
separate
I
mean
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
want
to
really
rename
it
to
logs
bridge.
That
is
also
totally
fine,
and
then
we
have
accepted
logs
direct
directory
here,
which
basically
says
which
has
the
actual
user
facing
as
and
when
it
comes.
C
C
There
should
be
a
separate
directory
or
created
here
specifically
for
the.
C
Yeah
I
these
wrappers,
basically
yeah
they
they
I
mean
if
you
want,
we
can
have.
We
can
leave
it
here
also
because
in
user
facing
there
would
be
directly
in
a
separate
namespace.
This
could
be
a
separate
namespace
through
this.
This
provides
wrappers
just
provides
a
convenience
for
the
appenders
to
directly
use
it.
C
C
D
C
Was
thinking
so
having
it
under
bridge
will
also
give
more
indication
that
this
is
not
to
be
used
for
an
end
user?
If
anybody
want
to
use
it,
because
we
cannot
stop
anybody
to
to
use
it
as
an
end
user
API
directly
in
their
application.
But
if
it
is
a
point,
if
they
see
it's
a
bridge,
so
they
will,
they
will
understand
that
this
is
something
different,
not
not
something
which
they
should
be
directly
using.
It.
C
This
this
is
umbrella
issue,
basically
for
all
the
Avi
breaking
stuff.
So
probably,
let's
continue
adding
it
here
and
the
trigger
would
be
I'll
say
this.
The
latest
exchanges
which
we
are
thinking
should
come
for
adding
a
link.
If
that's
something
which
comes
probably,
we
will
convey
for
that
too
yeah
this
one.
C
C
C
C
E
1.8.3
I
think
that's
only
that's.
One
change
is
install
install
yeah.
C
C
C
Facing
this
issue-
and
we
also
faced
this
issue-
I
mean
I,
never
faced
this
issue,
while
by
building
it
locally
on
my
WSL
but
I,
remember
we
we
did
had
faced
this
issue
when
in
our
CI
builds,
and
there
was
a
hack
which
we
added
in
the
ca.
B
B
Have
people
that
reported
that
same
issue
to
me
internally
also,
the
the
problem
is
that
the
cmake
diff
decide
whether
it
is
installed
or
not,
based
on
whether
the
source
directory
and
the
red
directory
is
the
same.
So
if
you
do
a
Berlin
Source,
it's
installed,
if
you
do
a
build
out
of
source,
it's
not
installed,
and
this
turns
out
to
be
a
bad
assumption.
C
C
To
bring
this,
you
know.
E
Okay,
I
think
you
tagged
me
right
on
this
right
here.
I
haven't
got
time
to
try,
look
at
it,
I
think
for
for
this
release,
I
think
I'm,
not
sure
we
can
take
any
action
as
well.
C
E
C
E
C
Let
me
just
mention
this
is
not
specific
to
visual
package
but
yeah,
since
somebody
is
reported
for
VC
package.
B
Seen
the
make
file
being
out
after
after
our
generation
in
CI
to
stock
the
the
plugin
compiled
your
PC
code?
Do
you
know
the
history
about
that.
C
One
yeah
I
mean
so
this
was
added
by
me,
I
remember,
and
the
problem
which
I
was
facing.
That
time
was
somehow
grpc.
Cpp
plugin
was
when,
when
trying
to
build,
I
saw
that
this
was
this.
This
path
was
not
getting
set
for
this
grpc
cpv,
plugin
and
so
just
took
it
from
here
and
added
it.
I
mean
so
I
mean
it
was.
C
This
was
the
issue
where
this
that
that's
what
I
remember
as
of
now
that
somehow
some
of
the
the
full
part
of
this
year,
vccp
plugin,
was
not
getting
set
during
a
bill,
and
it
has
to
be
explicitly
done
and
then
it
worked.