►
From YouTube: 2021-08-25 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
A
B
I
joined
a
meeting
from
a
calendar
link
I
had
and
there
were
a
bunch
of
other
people
on
it,
so
my
calendar
link
must
be
way
out
of
date
for
this
meeting.
A
A
B
Yeah,
I
sometimes
so
the
one
thing
is:
if
you
changed
it,
I
don't
know
when
you
changed
it,
but
sometimes
it
just
takes
a
long
time
to
get
to
the
google
cloud.
Sync,
I
think
morgan
might
own
the
sync
thing
he
set
that
up,
so
I
I
use
it
because
and
then
I
just
forget
that,
like
things
are
kept
externally
and
I
have
to
go
move
it,
you
know.
A
Okay-
and
I
think
lalit
will
not
join
today's
meeting
and
he
just
landed
seattle
and
he's
in
the
new
employee
training.
Today,
oh
nice,
nice,
that's.
B
A
Okay,
yeah,
probably
we
can
start
and
let
me
share
my
screen.
A
Okay,
I
think,
for
today
I
only
have
one
topic
is:
what's
a
expectation
we
could
get
for
completing
the
review.
Teaser
review.
B
B
Okay
hold
on,
let
me
pull
up
in
the
bug
I
need
about.
I
think
two
more
hours
of
time
to
just
get
through
all
the
other,
like
spec
checking
components,
I'm
doing
the
you
know
just
reading
the
spec
looking
at
what
c,
plus
plus
did
looking
at
other
sdks
and
making
sure
it
kind
of
lines
up
and
is
consistent.
B
A
B
Right,
the
one
right
I
just
the
so
so
the
ones
that
you
support,
I
just
need
to
validate
the
ones
you
don't
support
is
fine,
and
what
I
try
to
do
here
is
yeah.
If
you
read
that
interesting,
your
view
of
that
looks
different
than
my
view
of
that
mine.
It
it
actually,
instead
of
just
having
a
number
it
has
the
entire
title.
B
B
B
So
yeah
some
of
these
are
already
done,
but
the
so
optional
cleanups
those
are
obviously
optional.
I
want
to
talk
about
those
and
see
what
you
want
to
do.
Okay,
but
they're,
not
they're,
not
like
necessarily
required,
and
some
of
these
bugs
are
just
like
here-
is
what
the
specification
says:
here's
what
sequence
plus
does
and
opportunities
to
clean
up
and
be
more
consistent
with
other
things,
so
yeah.
B
If
you
want
to
pop
open
any
of
those,
we
can
talk
about
the
there
there's
a
some
commonality
that
that
one
you
already
fixed
yeah.
B
B
A
B
I
think
there's
a
bug
around
this
or
I
just
asked
a
question
around
it.
Okay,
I
thought
I
had.
I
thought
I
had
edited
that
one,
I'm
sorry!
Let
me
let
me
look
at
it's
weird
that
what
the
issue
that
you're
seeing
is
not
the
same
as
the
one
that
I
see
here.
Let
me
let
me
present
to
you
what
I
what
I
see.
Okay,
I
want
to
see
why
it's
different.
You
can
tell
me.
B
Of
the
spec
that
says
yeah
the
span
context
should
have
a
way
to
wrap
it
into
a
span.
That's
what
default
span
was
all
about.
It
looks
like
you
solved
that
so
I
didn't
hey,
we
can
go.
Take
a
look
at
that.
There
was.
B
Default
tracer
api
header
should
be
marked
internal,
not
for
public
use
or
documented
yeah,
so
you
removed
it
great
helper
methods
for
accessing
spam
directly
from
context
and
spam
api.
So
this
one
is
interesting.
A
B
B
That's
right
and
in
there's
this
in
the
propagation
there's
the
exact
same
method
under
detailed
context.
B
B
A
Don't
know
what
kind
of
duplication
in
both
apis.
A
B
Yep,
that's
that's.
My
suggestion
is
just
to
to
remove
one
this.
This
thing
where
the
propagation
has
context.
Manipulation,
though,
is
kind
of
a
theme,
and
that
also
is
the
the
concern
here
with
baggage.
So
in
the
baggage
spec,
the
specification
states
that
you
should
be
able
to
pull
baggage
from
like
on
and
off
of
context,
but
the
api
as
it
exists.
If
we
click
here,
is
inside
of
this
baggage,
propagator
right,
okay,
so.
B
Here
is
baggage
is
meant
to
be
interacted
with
by
users,
and
so
putting
it
in
propagator
implies
it's
only
for
propagation
and
that's
also
a
deviation
from
every
other
sdk.
So
my
suggestion
is
basically
just
to
move
this
piece
of
the
method
into
either
a
static
method
on
baggage
itself
or
a
a
into
a
header
file
under
baggage,
because
it's
part
of
it's
not.
You
know
this
isn't
about
propagation.
B
And
I
think
this
one
was
already
opened
and
there
might
be
a
pr
around
it
it's
this
by
the
way.
Just
so
you
know
this
was
a
last
minute
spec
edition
before
1.0,
okay,.
B
We
don't
support
it,
but
they
added
that
right
before
the
spec
went
1.0,
it's
not
not
a
big
deal.
I
don't
think
that
one's
worth
talking
about
oh
yeah,
so
here's
another
one.
There's
this
two
span
pointer.
B
So
this
is
actually
used,
I
think,
to
convert,
but
from
an
actual,
like
span
implementation
into
a
span
pointer
in
the
api.
B
So
it's
like
a
detail
of
how
we
implement
things.
So
if
you
look
at
two
span
pointer
in
here.
B
A
B
Significantly,
because
you
know
someone
could
depend
on
it,
so
just
cl
again
that
notion
of
clearly
denoting
just
making
sure
that
this
is
hidden
somewhere
or
it's
obvious,
that
it's
an
internal
detail
and
that
people
shouldn't
depend
on
it.
Okay,
yep
makes
sense.
B
Yeah
so
context-y
things
and
the
optional
ones.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
this
as
well,
so
I
have
this
as
adding
schema
url
to
tracer
provider.
This
is
not
part
of
the
1.0
spec.
A
B
B
A
B
Yeah
required
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about,
and
so
this
is
an
optional
cleanup,
but
basically
the
baggage
api
deviates
from
the
specification
right
now
in
three
ways
that
I
don't
know
if
it's
necessary.
So,
first
of
all,
there's
a
get
method.
I
think
it's
get
entry
or
yeah.
I
think
it's
get
entry
or
get
key
or
no,
it's
get
value.
Okay.
B
So
if
you
look
at
the
baggage
api,
get
value
in
the
specification
is
get
value
in
the
api,
but
remove
key
in
the
api
in
the
specification
is
called
delete
in
c
plus
plus
get
all
values
in
the
specification
is
called
get
all
entries
in
c,
plus,
plus
and
set
value
in
the
specification
is
called
set
in
c
plus
plus
so
at
a
minimum
right.
There's
on
the
api.
There's
a
method
called
get
value
and
then
another
method
called
set.
B
B
B
Yeah,
because
it
you,
we
can't
change
it
later.
So
if
you
want
to
open
a
bug
to
fix
that,
please
do
marketing
is
optional
because
you
do
abide
by
the
spec.
It's
just
that's
not
something
you
can
change
later.
So.
B
B
Right
like
again
get
value
versus
set
and
get
value
versus
get
all
entries
right
like
the
word
value
is,
is
used,
value
is
used,
entries
is
used
and
and
not
used
like
all
of
all
three,
so
I
would
suggest
pick
one
and
stick
with
it
and
then
just
for
consistency's
sake,
not
not
a
big
deal
anyway.
Like
I
said
it's
optional
figure
out.
If
you
want
to
do
it,
I
still
need
to
go
through.
I
think
I
haven't
reviewed
version
and
stability
policy
enforcement
fully.
B
I'm
doing
that
as
I
go
through
the
apis,
so
you
know
how
this
one
about
two
span:
pointer
being
public
yeah
right
well,.
B
Yeah
that
that's
that's
related
to
this.
That's.
A
B
Or
or
commenting
in
the
cleanup
right
anyway,
I
need
to
go
through
resource.
I
need
to
finish
context
propagation.
I
need
to
look
over
the
environment
variables
that
are
supported
and
then
the
set
of
exporters.
So
that's
that's
where
I
say
I
think
it's
about
two
more
hours,
because
this
was
just
huge
like
this
was
yeah,
that's
hard,
yeah!
Okay,
do
you
you've?
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
me
or
anything?
We
can
do
to
make
this
faster
or
you.
B
Normal
build
the
only
thing
that
I'm
going
to
ask
in
that,
and
I'm
going
to
review
this
I
need
to
look
at
the
details
is
just
that.
It
is
clear
to
users
the
stability
guarantees
of
those.
So
if
it's
like,
you
have
to
name
a
flag
and
it's
clearly
documented
that
they're
beta
but
then
you're
totally
fine,
you
don't
have
to
do
anything
there
and
I'm
not
planning
to
review
those.
The
only
pit.
The
only
bit
of
that
api,
I
review,
is
to
make
sure
everything
is
hidden
behind
whatever
version
and
stability
guarantee
you
have.
B
So
you
know
if
it's
like,
if
you're
using
the
flag,
great,
I'm
just
gonna,
make
sure
everything's
behind
the
flag,
if
you're
just
using
documentation.
Only
then
I'll
go
check
all
the
documentation,
but
it's
just
making
sure
that
the
thing
that
you
tell
users
is
your
stability
guarantees
lines
up
with
your
enforcement.
You
know
that's.
B
A
B
Yeah
yeah
the
other
bit
here
just
this
like
so
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
this
this
flag
here
around
like
what
we're
doing
with
this
process.
This
is
one
reason
I
call
this
out
right
just
to
make
sure
that
names
are
consistent.
Okay,
so
that
will
get
done.
This
will
get
done
around
the
same
time.
We're
done
with
the
compliance
matrix.
The
version
and
stability
will
be
done
around
the
same
time,
I'm
done
with
the
compliance
matrix.
B
This
I'm
also
looking
at
in
the
sdk
implementation,
so
this
will
probably
basically
I
think
all
of
these
four
will
get
checked
off
when
we're
done
here.
There
might
be
a
few
things.
I
need
to
go
back
and
look
at,
but
when
you
see
all
of
these
checked
off
we're
pretty
much
done.
B
A
Yeah
so
yeah
so
far
for
us
for
the
you,
so
you
when
you
complete
their
review
so
for
us
to
close
all
the
to-do's,
then
what's
up
what
will
be
the
next
step
after
that.
B
Well,
let's
it's
not!
None
of
this
is
formal,
so
how
about
you
go
through
close,
all
the
bugs
I'll,
probably
take
a
quick
look
at
some
of
them.
I'm
not
really
again,
I'm
not
super
worried,
but
when
I
close
this
bug,
then
we
can.
We
can
launch
a
1.0
as
long
as
you're
comfortable
with.
If
there's
anything
we
we
change
that
you
want
to
allow
to
marinate
as
an
rc.
A
B
Yeah
and,
like
I
said
with
with
this,
for
example,
happy
happy
to
have
a
conversation
on
that
that
this
is
related
to
consistent
naming
and
this
nothing.
The
names
don't
have
to
match
the
spec,
but
when,
when
you
deviate
just
having
a
a
reason
and
a
consistent
naming
based
on
that
reason
is
good.
A
Yeah
the
name
doesn't
conform
to
not
consistent,
but
I
just
have
a
little
concern
that
if
we
change
the
name
naming
now
when
we
break
some
users,
which
is
already
relying
on
using
our
rc,
even
I
think
that
is
not
a
guaranteed
between
yes.
B
A
B
Okay,
to
the
extent
you
can
reach
out
to
them
and
let
them
know
that'd
be
ideal,
there's
also
the
open,
telemetry
cpp
contrib
repo.
B
B
A
B
A
A
Yeah,
thanks
for
your
time
and
talk
to
you
later,
yeah
have
a
great.