►
From YouTube: 2021-10-25 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).
B
C
Okay,
so
basically
I
mean
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
matrix
api
implementation,
so
I
mean
just
wanted
to
bring
that
here
because
the
last
time
when
we
discussed
we
planned,
I
mean
it
was
planned
that
we
are
going
to
remove
the
existing
api
existing
matrix
implementation,
and
then
we
are
going
to
do
everything
on
fresh.
C
But
the
problem
right
now
is
that
I
mean
there
are
lots
of.
I
mean
the
the
kind
of
issues
and
the
work
is
happening.
I
mean
like,
like
few
people
like
I've,
been
last
meeting
few
people
joined,
who
wanted
to
contribute
something
on
the
existing
matrix
api
because
they
have
been
using
that
in
their
current
company.
C
C
So
I
just
thought,
probably
if
that's
the
case,
we
should
not,
and
I
think
there
have
been
some
bug
fixes
also
were
done.
Yes,
pr
was
also
raised,
so
I
mean
so
couple
of
companies
have
raised.
I
mean
one
of
the
one
of
the
companies
from
people
they
joined
last
meeting
that
they
wanted
to
contribute
something
in
the
matrix
existing
matrix
api.
C
A
C
Yeah
so
I
mean
so
the
question
I
mean
we
didn't,
we
didn't
discuss
the
question
whether
whether
they
can
upgrade
the
new
one
or
not,
because
I
think
they
were
using
it
the
existing
one.
So,
but
I
mean
I
just
felt
that
probably
we
should
not
break
that.
I
mean
in
case
so
definitely
at
one
point.
We
cannot
really
let
it
go
for
long.
C
This
is
not
something
that
we
can
keep
both
the
implementation
simultaneously
for
a
long
time,
but
I
was
just
thinking
that
abruptly.
If
we
remove
something
the
world
implementation
and
they
may
be
the
concern
from
the
customers
who
are
using
it.
C
A
C
So
if
you
go
to
api
here
like
there
is
currently
its
matrix
here
right,
so
what
I
have
done
is
I
mean
so
there
is
a
matrix
folder
here
which
contains
all
those
metrics
api
implementation
and
these
are
behind
matrix
namespace.
A
A
B
C
Insult
or
I
mean
another
way,
could
be,
let's
keep
it
as
matrix,
so
I
think
you're
right.
First
of
all,
it
can
be
new.
I
mean
it
looks
like
something
new
is
probably
v1
gives
more
clarity
than
it
says.
It's
something.
C
Yeah,
what
is
this
new
going
on
so
yeah
yeah,
so
yeah,
so
we'll
make
it
v1
or
other
option.
Other
option
could
be
that
we'll
keep
it
matrix
here.
Yeah.
A
C
Both
the
places,
but
we
have,
if
you
see
we
have
right
now,
the
current
implementation
is
behind
this
feature,
plug.
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
I
mean
I'll
say:
let's
not
encourage
that.
I
mean
we
I
I
got
your
point
like
we
just
would
restrict
them
to
use
both
of
them
simultaneously,
but
I
think,
instead
of
that,
let
them
move
to
the
or
you're
saying
that
they
want
to
phase
out
slowly,
the
old
one
and
as
and
when
we
are
providing
a
new
feature.
They
want
to
start
using
that
yeah.
C
A
A
A
Do
you
think
we
can
create
a
sub
namespace
under
metrics
like
currently
v0,
or
that's
our
preview
red,
not
stable,
and
we
the
one
we
are
working
on?
We
call
it
b1.
A
C
No,
we
are
not
going
to
do
that,
but
what
why
do?
Why
do
we
want
to
do
that?
I
mean
you
just
you're
saying
that's
I
mean
if
we
do
that,
then
suddenly,
I
think
we
have
to
again.
C
C
A
B
C
C
I'm
just
thinking
whether
we
should
do
because
that
will
cause
more
confusion.
Already.
We
have
sdk
avi
versions,
api
api
versions,
which
are
actually
going
to
be
directly
related
to
the
actual
versions
of
the
apis
which
we
are
using.
C
A
B
C
Is
ready,
ask
them
to
probably
give
some
time
for
the
customers
to
move,
whether
we'll
remove
it
immediately
or
we'll
make
it
again
as
a
v0
or
something
and
then
move
it
like
this
and
then
slowly.
Let
them
tell
to
switch
it
to
over
the
course
of
time,
move
it.
So
something
like
that.
A
B
A
We
are
going
to
it
should
not
take
us
too
long
for
us
just
to
remove
the
the
old
one
right,
remove
the
current
current
metrics
api
and
just
called
the
new
one
matrix,
but
we
also
we
remove
the
flag
like
metrics
preview,
then
I
think
that
user
should
be
notified.
This
is
not
preview,
yes,
yes,
we
have
to
do
that.
Also.
C
A
C
A
C
C
So
I
think
not
much
of
the
exporters
are
there
so
yeah
so
so
anyway,
I
mean
whatever
we
keep.
We
have,
I
mean
at
one
point.
Definitely
we
have
to
notify
the
existing
customers
that
this
is
going
to
be
removed,
give
some
grace
period
over
the
course
of
one
month
or
a
couple
of
months.
We
are
going
to
remove
it.
So
more.
A
C
Would
be
happening
and
then
probably
we'll
do
that,
but
that's
still
fine.
The
only
problem
I
see
is
that
I
don't
want
really
for
the
new
customers
to
do
this.
A
C
A
Yeah,
if
we
want
to
use
the
metrics
for
the
new
api,
I
think
in
the
long
term
yeah
I
don't
suggest
that
we
use
some
temporary
name
like
v1
yeah,
just
to
work
around
the
naming
conflict
and
then,
after
we
duplicate
the
next
one
rename
it
back.
I
think
we
will
rename
it
for
two
times
that
will
cause
cause
more
confusion.
C
Are
you
seeing
that
now
just
come
again,
you're
saying
that
we
should
use
the
matrix.
A
I
mean
for
currently
the
suggestion
is
naming
the
new
one
as
underscore
b1
right
and
after
we
duplicate
in
the
the
current
like
a
legacy
one.
We
rename
it
back
to
matrix
thread
in
that
two.
Yes,
yes,
yeah,
then,
which
means.
B
C
A
Yeah,
but
for
the
new
one,
as
I
think
that
that
is
the
one
we're
going
to
recommend,
I
suggest
we
use
a
unique
name
from
the
beginning,
no
name
change.
I
think
that
yeah
that
will
also
break
some
backward
compatibility
like
the
customer,
relies
on
our
initial
release.
Then.
A
C
C
C
Still,
we
have
to
use
different
folders,
so
so
the
change
will
be
anywhere
required.
C
A
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
A
Yeah
yeah
at
install
time,
we
can
choose
the
right
version
to
install
and
you
in
our
repo
build.
We
do.
We,
I
think
we
for
our
build.
We
can
choose
which
folder
to
include
right
to
build
like
a
metric
matrix
example
or
something.
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
Should
we
should
we
just
and
assume
that,
once
we
are
going
to
have
a
release
or
or
once
we
feel
that
before
doing
a
wheel
one
dot
over
for
matrix,
we
will
definitely
remove.
We
have
to
do
the
changes
in
the
matrix
new
metrics.
I
mean
the
existing
users
have
to
change.
Do
this
change?
Okay,
before
we
1.0,
we
are
definitely
going
to
ask
them
to
change
it,
they're
not
going
to
so
it's
going
to
break
their
function,
their
environment,
but
I
think
we
are
not
production.
A
C
A
C
C
One
thing
I
mean,
I
think,
let's
use
the
macro
for
switch
and
let's
make
the
the
what
you're
saying
the
folder
name
has
matrix
word.
The
existing
one
will
make
it
better
or.
B
C
For
the
for
the
new
api-
and
that
also
means
that
customer
cannot
use
both
of
them
simultaneously,
but
I
think
that
let's
say
that
that's
not
recommended-
and
I
mean
I
I
don't
see-
really
see
that
scenario,
because
there
is
not
lot
there.
There
are
lots
of
apis
there's
just
one
sync
api
and
one
async
api,
and
I.
C
C
C
A
A
C
I
think
he
I
saw
his
comment.
He
said
that,
okay,
let
me
see,
oh,
I
think
he
said
that
he
will.
He
will
take
http
log
exported
and
then
so
that
you
can
simultaneously
work
on
grpc.
You
didn't
mean
that.
A
A
C
I
wanted
to.
There
is
one
document
which
is
talking
about
the
current
status
of
all
the
six
josh.
I
think
in
today's
maintenance
meeting.
I
think
josh
was
not
there,
but
he
had
this.
He
told
everybody
to
have
a
look
into
that
which
this
is.
This
is
a
universal
state
of
the
open
telemetry.
As
of
now.
A
C
C
A
A
C
I
don't
know,
I
think,
let's
do
one
thing
I
think
we
discussed
this
also
in
our
last
to
last
probably
community
meeting
that
we
we
are
going
to
create
one.
In
fact,
I
think
I
I
don't
know
whether
I
took
it
on
me.
If,
yes,
then
I'll
I'll
do
that
that
will
we'll
add
one
table
in
the
content
paper
which
says:
what's
the
status
of
all
the
components
there,
that
will
give
more
clarity.
A
C
C
C
A
C
C
I
don't
think
it
would
be
published,
but
that's
a
good,
that's
good.
If
you
know
that,
let
me
see
if
there
is
any
so
I
didn't
attend
the
maintenance
meeting
today
completely.
So,
let's
see
what
was
discussed
here.
C
Maybe
yeah
but
good
good
to
have
some.
Apart
from
that,
I
think
today's
meeting
also
there
was
discussion
on
open
tracing
compatibility.
We
don't
have
any
support
for
that,
so
I
just
mentioned
that
afterwards
we
don't
support
it.
We
don't
have
any
plan
to
support
it,
so
unless
until
we
get
more
contributors
to
do
that,.
A
B
C
Yeah
exactly
this
was
okay.
I
think
this
is
yeah.
This
is,
I
know
we
do
use
dynamic
casting
in
some
of
the
code,
but
I
think
that's
not.
Let's
not
fix
the
old
code.
Now,
probably
let's
see
for
the
new
one
things.
Okay,
so.
B
C
Is
basically
if
we,
if
we
don't
want
to
use
rtti,
then.
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
Then
this
this
is
one
issue
mixed
by
10
stream,
which
I
was
just
talking
about,
and
I
don't
know
why
it's
happening
some.
Some
some
corruption
of
these
span
data
in
the
contain
the
during
propagation.
But
I
don't
know
I'm
just
following
up
with
this
person,
but
I
think
he
has
to
send
some
code,
which
is
able
to
reproduce
the
issue.
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
A
Yeah
leave
it
too
long
and
like
with
the
feature
the
lock
exporter
and
the
matrix
api
sdk.
Maybe
it
will
be
hard
to
merge
this.