►
From YouTube: 2020-09-30 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
Review
but
the
matter
is
not
exactly
that
it
is
more
like
we
have.
It
is
touching
the
group
by
trace
processor
and
we
talked
about
moving
that
chicken
trip,
but
this
one
here
was
was
opened
before
we
talked
that
so
I'd
like
to
get
this
one
word
before
moving
to
to
contrib.
A
Yeah
make
sense:
let's,
let's
have
it
merged
and
then
we
can
move
it.
Okay,
I
will
yeah.
I
signed
it
to
ryan.
Can
you
ping
him
in
the
request
so
that
he
reviews
it
yeah.
B
And
then
still
on
the
on
the
topic
of
moving
things
to
contrib,
we
have
the
tail-based
center
as
well,
and
I
talked
to
to
chris
smith
yesterday
the
one
who
reported
the
deadlock
issue
and
he
is
up
to
move
the
the
tail-based
sampler
chicken
strip.
So
it
would
be
a
nice
contribution
from
him
now
one
question
that
that
he
got
and
I
I
don't
know,
the
answer
is
whether
you
want
or
whether
we
want
to
get
history
with
this
move.
I
think.
A
It
would
be
nice
to
preserve
it
right.
So,
let's,
let's
preserve
the
people's
contribution.
Okay,
if
it's
doable
like
if
it's
complicated,
then
let's
make
it
a
single
thing.
Yeah
I
mean.
B
It
is
doable.
The
only
thing
that
we
may
have
to
I
mean
it
has
to
be
clear
to
us-
is
that
the
committee
history
will
be
kind
of
messed
up
right
because
we
are
merging
things
here,
updated
with
something
from
last
year,
so
I
mean
we're
picking
the
commits
we're,
not
questioning
yeah,
because
if
we
scratch
we
lose
the
history.
So
I
guess
that's
the
only
the
only
thing
that
is
to
pay
attention.
B
A
C
A
Visibility
is
there.
If
somebody
needs
to
actually
examine
the
evolution
of
the
code,
then
they
can
go
and
look
in
the
committee
history
of
the
course
so
we're
not
losing
any
anybody's
we're
not
losing
anybody's
contribution.
They
will
remain
in
the
committee
history
of
the
court.
I
think
yeah,
let's,
let's
do
that.
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
this
more
complicated
than
it
has
to
be.
B
Perhaps
one
thing
we
can
do
besides,
that
is
to
get
the
git
history
or
the
author
list
for
the
for
the
processors
and
include
the
authors
in
the
mid
message
saying
I
don't
know
right.
C
A
B
B
Yeah,
so
you
asked
about
merchfy.
B
To
the
organization-
and
I
did
not
actually
wanted
that
to
I
mean
to
get
a
requirement
for
the
organization
or
request
for
the
organization-
I
just
wanted
to
be
added
to
my
or
to
the
operator
repository,
which
is
you
know
what
I'm
doing
right
now.
I
can
show
you,
but
I
I
listed
all
the
links.
C
B
The
relevant
parts
and
basically
verify
is
a
tool
that
we're
using
in
jaeger,
starting
with
the
jaeger
operator,
where
we
can
two
features
we're
using
mostly
one
is
merge
on
green,
so
people
can
review
prs
and
because
kubernetes
tests
takes
quite
a
long
time,
like
10
15
20
minutes
to
execute
it's
very
common,
that
we
end
up
reviewing
things
and
we
approve
prs,
but
the
test
has
not
finished
yet.
So
we
use
mergify,
then
to
merge
things
whenever
the
ci
finishes
right.
B
A
Where
does
it
look
at
the
requirements
in
the
repository
setting
so.
A
B
A
See
there
is
like
yeah,
there
is
slight
complication
here,
because
what
we
do
normally
after
the
approvals
by
by
official
approvers
maintainers,
still
sometimes
go
over
the
code
base
before
before
the
marriage
is
actually
done.
It's
not
captured
anywhere
in
the
form
of
permissions
in
the
merge
permissions.
A
B
What
is
happening
whenever
I
reveal
something?
It's
not
a
green
check
box,
it's
just
a
great
checkbox,
all
right.
A
C
A
B
Quite
sure
whether
what
you
can
do
what
you
can
certainly
do
is,
if
it
touches
this
this
and
that
file,
then
I
want
a
review
from
from
this
specific
person
so
that.
B
You
can
also
require
a
number
of
approvals,
so
you
can
say
that
I
I
require
two
reviews,
two
approved
reviews,
but
I
don't
know
if
you
can
say
I
want
one
of
those
one
of
the
people
in
this
list
here
to
approve
first,
okay,
I'm
not
sure.
A
Got
it?
Okay,
let
me
have
a
look
at
that
and
I
will
discuss
with
other
maintainers,
but
it's
I
wouldn't
want
to
lose
the
the
visibility
of
what
is
happening,
see
if,
if
it's
approved
by
someone
else
and
automatically
merged,
it's
very
likely
that
as
a
maintainer,
I
won't
even
notice
that
it
happens
right
unless
I
go.
B
That
so
that's
one
feature
from
from
verify.
The
second
feature
is
actually
assigning
things
to
people,
both
assigning
and
adding
people
as
reviewers,
and
I
think
that
that
may
actually
be
very
helpful
for
the
collector,
because
I
mean
it
could
fulfill
the
the
the
role
of
you
know
triagers
in
some
ways,
because
if
it
touches
some
some
like
eager
files,
then
it
can
assign
me
as
a
reviewer,
for
instance,
yeah.
A
B
Right
yeah,
so
yeah,
those
are
the
two
features
from
vertify
we're
using
both
for
the
eager
operator.
I
would
really
benefit
from
from
using
the
first
feature
like
the
merchant
green
for
the
operator
for
the
open
telemetry
operator,
because
I'm
mostly
the
only
one
there,
but
I
can
operate.
A
Okay,
so
I
I
will
need
to
also
bring
this
to
the
technical
committee,
because
the
pcc
approves
the
the
usage
of
because
it's
enabled
organization-wide,
although
you
configure
it
per
repository,
it
needs
to
be
approved
by
the
pc,
so
yeah.
Let
me
have
a
look
at
what
we
can
gain
from
this
and
if
the
tc
agrees,
we
can
enable
it
and
then
we'll
decide
how
exactly
we
want
to
configure
for
each
of
them.
A
A
But
yeah,
that's
thanks
for
bringing
this
up.
I
think
we
are
already
at
the
stage
when
we
have
significant
significantly
large
number
of
contributors,
where
the
volume
of
the
prs
is
so
high
that
we
need
some
sort
of
automation.
Okay,
to
be
able
to
deal
with
this
yeah.
I
feel
like
I'm
spending
like
so
much
time,
even
just
on
triaging
assigning
pr's,
just
the
mechanical
parts,
even
merging
things,
seeing
if
it's
ready
for
merging
so
yeah
any
help
here
is
very
useful,
all
right.
A
D
So
pretty
much
what
I
want
to
do
is
I
want
to
be
able
to
add
labels
to
the
prometheus
metrics
through,
like
any
part
of
the
collector,
be
it
a
processor
or
through
an
exporter.
D
One
thing
that
we
thought
of
was
creating
potentially
a
new
label
processor
which
attaches
labels,
but
I
saw
that
there
already
exists
a
resource
processor
which
attaches
resource
attributes,
which
is
also
a
key
and
a
key
and
value
label.
Pretty
much
so
I
saw
like
prometheus
remote
red
exporter
that
one
needs
a
bit
of
work
done
in
order
to
if
we
want
to
use
the
resource
processor
to
add
labels,
but
the
prometheus
exporter
I
was
pretty
confused
about.
A
C
Yeah
the
resources
stuff
was
added
after
the
met
the
prometheus
export
was
created,
so
there's
probably
was
never
any
coordination
between
those
two.
I
would
guess.
E
C
So
you
know
your
best
bet.
If
you
really
want
to
make
this
work
is,
is
right,
you
know,
get
some
tests
in
place
if
they're
not
already
there
that
that
you
know
feeds
all
the
stuff
in
like
you
would
expect
it
to
happen
when
you're
using
the
resource
processor
and
then
just
you
know,
verify
that
the
right
thing
comes
out,
other
end,
okay
and
then
start
making
changes.
If
it
doesn't.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that
prometheus
exporter
is
using
the
old
data
format
and
there's
this
method
being
called
matrix2oc.
So
I
believe
that
if
there's
internal
the
current
model
being
used
for
resource
processor,
then
it
should
work
with
this
conversion,
but
yeah
test
test
would
be
best.
D
C
A
A
C
A
Is
I
don't
know
who
is
the
author
of
that,
and
this
is
the
part
that
I
said
we
inherited
from
our
consensus?
That's
why
I
guess
nobody
knows
really
what
exactly
is
happening
here:
okay
of
the
current
maintainers,
because
nobody
worked
on
that
actually.
D
Yeah
I'll
take
a
look
and
find
who
to
ask
to
commit
messages.