►
From YouTube: 2021-05-11 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
B
B
B
Okay,
I
think
we
can
start.
Please
add
your
name
to
the
attendees
list.
Can
someone
confirm
if
I'm
sharing.
B
Yeah,
so
very
few
updates
from
me,
so
I'll
just
go
over
them
and
see
if
there
are
any
other
open
questions
which
we
want
to
discuss.
B
So
one
of
the
thing
which
we
were
trying
to
do
our
last
sick
meeting
was
to
see
if
we
can
automate
the
new
get
publishing,
as
well
as
part
of
the
workflow,
rather
than
doing
a
manual
push,
and
one
follow-up
was
to
see
whether
it's
like
safe
to
do
so,
because
we
need
to
make
the
new
get
token
available
in
github
secrets
and
it
looks
like
it
is
safe
because
these
secrets
are
not
made
available
to
any
fork.
B
So
if
someone
submits
a
pr
from
a
fork,
they
won't
have
access
to
the
secret
so
which
means
the
only
time
the
secrets
are
available
is
if
the
pr
is
triggered
or
the
workflow
is
triggered
from
the
same
repository,
so
that
pretty
much
means
only
approvers
or
maintenance
will
be
able
to
trigger
these
prs.
B
So
it
looks
like
it's.
Okay,
there
shouldn't
be
any
other
reason
why
we
we
shouldn't
automate
this.
So
if
I
don't
hear
any
objections,
I'll
submit
apr
to
make
this
automated
I'll
start
with
the
control
repo,
because
we
have
like
a
slightly
different
process
to
do
the
release
for
the
contributor.
So
we
have
individual
aml
files
for
each
and
every
component
and
we
do
like
publish
to
migrate
so
I'll,
be
like
adding
nuget
here
by
just
using
the
nokia
token,
which
is
already
there.
B
I
think
it's
expert
but
I'll
try
to
put
the
new
one.
It's
still
not
automated,
like
it
just
eliminates
like
one
manual
step
yeah
but
thing
like
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
pr
which
okay,
I
think
prashant
did
submit
the
steps
which
should
be
merged.
Now.
A
Yeah
so
yeah,
I
think
I
pushed
those
changes
adding
in
the
three
pre-steps.
B
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
I
did
see
it.
I
thought
I
approved,
but
using
the
tag
from
step,
one
where
I
mean
every
step.
Is
this
one
and.
B
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
I'll,
prove
and
merge
it
now.
Would
you
like
have
some
time
to
work
on,
like,
like
writing
scripts,
for
this?
Having
looked
at
like
how
complex
it
is,
we
do
have
like
power.
We
have
the
migrate
part
automated,
which
should
be
like
me,
which
means
we
can
easily
automate
the
new
get
part,
but
given
that
there
is.
A
B
It
should
be
like
no
application,
we
just
changed
the
url
from
my
gate
to
nougat,
and
that
should
be
it
for,
but
we
still
need
like
I'm,
anticipating
like
or
expecting
like
something
like
once
you
like
have
the
pr
and
version
ready.
All
you
need
is
just
push
the
tag
and
the
rest
of
the
steps
would
be
like
done
automatically.
I
think
we
are.
B
The
only
thing
we
see
is
like
these
things
would
be
like
all
done,
like
the
creating
an
actual
github
release
would
be
to
be
automated,
because
that
means
releasing
things
from
clone
trip
would
be
like
fairly
straightforward,
just
pushing
it
like
tag,
and
that's
that's
it
like
person
like
do
you
have
some
experience
working
with
this
kind
of
things
or
like?
Should
we
just
find
it
for
now
and
come
back
to
it
when
we
have
some
cycles.
A
You
mean
automating
through
the
the
github
workflow
yeah
workflow
yeah.
I
I
think
I
can
do
that.
It's
so
the
github
actions.
B
Thing
they're
not
asking
for
any
complex
things
it
should
be.
There
should
be
like
some
actions
already
to
do
a
github
release
from
the
tag
so
yeah
yeah.
If
you
can
explore
that,
we
won't
eventually
do
it
for
like
the
main
trip
as
well,
but
like
control
properly,
is
a
good
place
to
like
get
like
get
all
the
like
scripts
and
workflows
like
polished,
and
then
we
can
promote
it
yeah.
We
do
like
everything
except
like
after
this
my
get.
A
Ready
so
when
I
was
doing
the
first
release
from
the
contrib
repo,
I
wanted
to
actually
do
some
sanity
testing
after
publishing
to
my
kit
before
finally
pushing
to
nuget.
So
that's
why
I
didn't
include
it
in
the
in
a
single
short
workflow
run,
but
yeah.
I
think
we
have
a
good
amount
of
confidence
now
in
these
workflows
so
yeah
we
can
add
the
publishing
to
new
get
peace,
yeah.
B
Okay,
yeah
and
it
should
be
like
straight
forward
in
the
control
proper
because
we
don't
have
to
like,
contain
multiple
change
logs.
It's
like
all
individual
components,
so
we
can
just
take
the
whatever
is
in
the
change,
changelog
and
then
just
use
that
and
don't
know
whether
we
have
been
updating
changelog.
B
B
Okay
yeah,
so
that's
put
this
topic
and
just
sharing
some
update
with
matrix
work.
So
we
had
the
dotnet
review,
which
started
last
week
and
just
got
finished
today.
There
is
approval
from
dotnet
to
do
the
sorry.
There
is
approval
on
api,
which
is
very
much
matching.
The
current
open
elementary
specification.
So
I'm
trying
to
see
like
where
oh
yeah,
this
is
actually
yeah.
So
if
we
shared
it
like
last
week.
B
So
if
anyone
wants
to
take
a
look,
please
go
ahead
and
take
a
look
it's
approved,
so
we
expect
to
get
a
bits
from
a
team
in
less
than
a
week
and
we'll
continue
to
work
on
the
sdk
implementation.
So
victor
and
myself,
we
currently
have
a
clone
kind,
not
cloned,
like
a
copy
version
of
the
proposed
api,
we'll
just
remove
it
when
we
get
the
actually
pay
from
it
and
continue
to
work
on
the
sdk.
B
So
we
do
have
like
couple
of
peers
already
merged
just
to
get
the
api
shapelet.
B
I
think
victor
just
pushed
like
another
pr,
oh
yeah,
to
get
the
aggregators
like
shape
of
how
aggregators
would
look
like.
None
of
these
are
like
final.
We
are
just
like
working
like
a
little
bit
ahead
of
the
spec,
because
tech
is
still
like
work
in
progress,
so
we'll
be
just.
B
We
will
still
be
like
actively
working
on
things
to
make
sure
like
we
are
helping
the
spec
writers
to
come
up
with
the
right
spec
and
also
to
give
feedback
to
the
dotnet
team,
like
in
case
the
api,
is
missing,
something
which
would
block
or
which
would
prevent
us
from
doing
something
in
the
sdk.
B
So
with
that
in
mind,
like
we'll,
be
like
actively
working
on
the
sticky
implementation,
you
can
like
watch
progress
in
fears,
and
I
also
promised
about
a
week
or
maybe
two
weeks
back
that
once
we
have
the
full
like
wiring
or
structure
ready,
we
will
try
to
create
like
smaller
work
items.
B
So
we
can
ask
like
others
to
help
contribute
like
someone
can
work
on
an
actual
aggregator,
because
we
are
not
focused
on
implementing
an
actual
aggregator
you're,
just
trying
to
get
the
shape,
which
is
basically
defining
what
interface
or
what
base
class
you
implement
to
define
an
aggregator.
So
similarly,
we'll
define
the
structure
for
exporter,
we'll
define
how
to
write.
B
Instrumentation
and
then
someone
can
actually
take
up
writing
the
instrumentation,
so
it's
probably
going
to
be
taking
another
two
weeks
before
we
have
that
ready,
then
I'll,
create
issues
and
reach
out
to
the
community
to
see
if
anyone
has
bandwidth
to
pick
individual
items.
B
So
as
of
now,
it's
still
like
very
early
stages,
so
I'll,
just
I'm
just
sharing
like
the
status
update
in
terms
of
release,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
appear
from
michael
about
fixing
the
scope
from
I
logger
is
merged
and
I'm
trying
to
do
a
release
with
that
change.
Today.
The
intention
I
mean
we
were
originally
planning
to
do
a
release
like
end
of
every
month,
so
like
beta
3,
would
have
come
by
default
by
end
of
may.
B
But
since
we
really
want
to
get
some
feedback
on
the
recent
change,
we
are
doing
a
release
like
today.
So
I'll
have
some
customers
to
try
out
the
scope.
Improvements
using
the
beta
3.
michael,
is
also
doing
a
look
to
activity
event
converter.
So
pr
is
already
there
we'll
be
like
moving
it
to
contribute,
which
will
also
be
leveraging
the
scope
feature
of
beta3.
B
So
that
will
be
a
very
reasonable
validation
for
the
scope
improvements
that
would
give
us
confidence
of
releasing
1.1.0
like
sometime
in
june.
So
I
did
update
the
milestones
a
little
bit
earlier.
So
let's
have
a
quick
look,
so
beta
3
is
what
I'm
going
to
do
like
today
and
beta
4,
I'm
putting
like
end
of
may,
which
would
contain,
like
any
other
fixes
which
are
arising
out
of
the
recent
logger
improvements
and
we'd,
also
be
working
on
the
configuration
improvements
because
we
did
introduce.
B
I
I
defer
tracer
provider
like
in
1.1
beta1.
We
use
this
next
beta
to
iron
out
any
issues
with
that.
If
no
major
issues
found
like
we'll
go
ahead
and
release
1.1
at
june
30
or
earlier,
I
put
like
june
30
just
to
give
us
enough
time
to
work
on
the
configuration.
So
if
no
other
concerns
I
yeah,
I
mean
this
is
already
like
published.
So
if
anyone
has
any
other
feedback,
please
let
me
know
right
now.
A
So
this
is
a
feature
list
planned
for
1.1.0.
A
A
B
Support
and
whatever
yes,
so,
like
I
mean
1.1.0,
will
include
everything
since
1.0.1.
So
all
the
like
combined
features
since
1.0.1
will
be
part
of
1.1,
like
I
think
it's
mostly
bug
fixers.
The
only
real
feature
is
adding
log
support
for
I
logger
and
the
configuration
improvement,
which
is
to
support
the
configuration
in
da
environment.
B
B
It's
still
waiting
for
spec,
so
I
don't
see
like
much
progress
there,
so
maybe
it
will
be
like
delayed
like
I
I
I
don't
know
like
when
like
it
should
be
like
happening
sometime
in
the
next
few
months.
I
just
don't
know
when
so
I
haven't
created
milestones,
because
I
don't
control
it
yeah.
So
that's
pretty
much
the
update
I
wanted
to
share,
so
you
can
take
any
other
questions
right
now.
B
So
I
I
was
just
updating
we
do
have
like
metrics
approved
here
like
I
have
shared
the
link
to
the
design.
If
you
want,
you
can
take
a
look,
and
we
are
also
trying
to
do
the
sdk
implementation
as
well
just
to
give
feedback
to
the
dotnet
itself
to
see
if
we
are
missing
anything
from
the
api
and
also
to
give
feedback
to
the
actual
metrics
back
as
well.
So
if
you
or
like
anyone
from
your
company
is
wanting
to
work
on
metrics,
please
reach
out
to
us.
C
Yep,
absolutely
and-
and
I
think
we're
discussing
right
now
about
stackdriver
exploiters
currently
in
country
repository,
and
I
think
the
question
is
like
whether
we
want
to
move
it
out
or
keep
it
in
place
and
when
I
was
discussing
it
to
other
people
like
there
is
a
mixed
feelings
about
moving
it
out
because
moving
out,
meaning
that
few
people
that
will
be
working
on
that
wouldn't
contribute
to
country
repository.
B
Oh
this
one,
you
you're,
referring
to
this
one
right.
There
scat
stack
driver
exporter.
C
B
B
C
So
I
I
heard
concerns
I
think,
avalita
raised
these
concerns
and
she
said
that
aws
has
a
good
experience,
keeping
everything
in
country
pre-poetry
and
it's
actually
helping
either
all
step
overall
health
of
a
community.
So.
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
as
long
as
likes,
but
doesn't
prevent
us
from
or
pc
doesn't
prevent
us
from
hosting
vendor-specific
components.
Here
I
don't
have
any
objections,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
aws
has
any
exporter
here
right,
like
aws
only
has
like
few
instrumentation,
but
the
actual
exporter
to
aws
backend
is
not
here.
It's
somewhere
else.
The.
A
A
If
we
have
maintainers
or
active
contributors
or
someone
to
own
the
project,
then
yeah.
C
C
B
Yeah
and
I
think
like
we
were
just
talking
about
like
we
did
document
the
release
process,
so
I
want
every
maintainer
to
try
like
at
least
one
release.
So
everyone
knows
what's
it
like
to
do
an
actual
release,
because
we
don't
have
like
a
like
single
button
release
yet
so
some
might
have
some
github
actions
ready
next
week
or
sometime
in
the
future.
B
So
if
we
haven't
released
like
we
were
doing
like
ad
hoc
releases,
so
when,
when
someone
asks
hey,
when
are
you
releasing
it?
You
just
go
ahead
and
click
some
buttons
follow
the
steps.
So
we
have
the
steps
now
I
did
release
two
of
them
following
the
instructions
which
prisham
has
written.
So
it's
okay
like
when
like
stackdriver,
makes
a
final
call
and
does
the
actual
change
like.
I
think
you
like
to
do
an
actual
release
for
struct
driver.
So
we
will
yeah
with
the
actual
release
process
as
well.
B
Okay,
another
topic,
so
I
I
don't
have
any
other
updates.
So,
michael,
like
do
you
want
to
ask
anything
yeah
I
did
suggest
like
something
to
michael
last
week.
Just
share
with
the
community
as
well.
So
michael
did
submit
a
pr
to
convert
or
like
provide
an
opportunity
for
people
to
like
convert
the
I
logger
logs
into
activities
and
trying
to
find
that
pr
somewhere
yeah
this
one.
B
So
you
use
like
I
logger
to
emit
logs,
but
you
want
to
send
the
logs
to
your
tracing
back
end.
So,
basically,
what
this
pr
is
doing
is
take
the
log
record
and
check
if
there
is
any
currently
active
activity
and
then
convert
that
logo
code
into
activity
event
and
send
it
to
the
tracing
exporter
and
let
let
it
be
taken
care
by
the
pricing
exporter.
B
So
the
ask
was
like:
should
we
host
it
in
the
main,
repo
or
country
purpose?
So
my
suggestion
was
to
host
it
initially
in
the
contrary
paper,
because
it's
not
like
a
spec
required
thing
and
eventually,
if
like
there,
is
a
spec
return
for
it
to
do
the
conversion
between
like
one
form
of
telemetry
to
another,
then
we
can
promote
it
back
to
the
main
ripple
and
even
make
it
part
of
the
core
sdk
itself,
but
until
then
I
suggested
to
put
it
in
the
contrib
repo.
B
Okay,
now
objection
so
michael,
you
got
like
more
confirmation
that
it
can
go
into
the
country
repo.
I
think
they
already
decided.
The
name
like
it
will
be
called
like
an
extension
package
where
we
can
put
like
other
things
as
well,
which
are
not
really
part
of
the
core
sdk,
which
can
be
thought
of,
as
extension.
So
we'll
start
with
this
feature
in
that
package
and
work
on
like
adding
more
things
into
it.
As
as
we
come
across
all
right
end
of
topic,
we
will
see
again
next
week.