►
From YouTube: 2021-08-17 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
A
A
B
B
Oh
michael
hello,
good
to
see
you,
I
sent
you
a
message
like
probably
two
weeks
back
and
trying
to
reply.
A
I
know
I
I
just
I
just
saw
it
sorry.
I've
been
I've
been
away
from
this
for
a
very
long
time,
but
I'm
trying
to
get
back
into
it
now,
if
nobody's
looked
into
that
thing,
yet
I
can
take
a
look
at
that
for
sure.
B
Okay,
yeah
thanks
I'm
trying
to
reflect.
Where
did
I
okay?
I
can
find
it
from
the
chat
right.
Oh
yes,
I
just
saw
someone
pinging
me
so
that
was
you
yeah,
okay,
okay
yeah.
So
there
is
no
issue
created
in
open
elementary
repo,
but
I
am
pretty
sure
it
should
be
affecting
open
elementary
as
well.
If
there
is
any
change
in
the
3.0
version
yeah
do
you
want
me
to
create
an
issue
or.
B
B
All
right
can
start
it's
two
minutes
past
four.
There
is
no
agenda
left
out
because
I
didn't
feel
anything.
I
wasn't
working
like
exactly
last
week,
so
it's
basically
same
update
as
last
week.
Okay,
I
think
michael
made
a
lot
of
progress
on
the
sp
net.
Telemetry
module.
So
like
it's
just
progressing.
Well,
I
don't
think
we
made
like
significant
progress
in
metrics.
B
We
did
merge
the
http
client
libraries
instagram,
but
that
I
said
nothing
has
been
merged,
so
expect
like
something
more
in
the
next
few
hours
and
few
days
that
that
I
said
I
don't
have
any
update
so
I'll
just
see.
If
anyone
has
questions,
oh
by
the
way,
there
is
a
new
in
my
team
who
is
upon
elementary.net
effort.
So
if
michael
maxwell
do
you
want
to
say
to
the
like
community,
because
you
usually
have
a
habit
of
introducing
new
people?
C
Oh
hello,
I'm
michael
maxwell.
I
just
joined
the
the
team
on
microsoft
here
with
cjo,
so
yesterday
was
my
first
day,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
trying
to
learn
this
stuff
right
now.
Okay,.
B
I'm
pretty
sure
like
in
a
matter
of
few
weeks.
You
will
also
be
like
actively
taking
part
in
things
so
looking
forward.
D
B
Yeah,
so
usually
we
like
ask
people
to
put
the
agenda
ahead
of
time.
If
you
don't
have
any
agenda,
we'll
just
take
like
open
questions
so
like
there
was
nothing
in
the
agenda.
So
now
it's
the
time
for
anyone
to
ask
questions
or
like
bring
any
topics
which
require
community
discussions,
if
nothing
we'll
just
like
stop
worlding.
D
I
have
a
quick
question
and
a
comment:
hey
michael
welcome,
and
only
if
you're
willing
to
share
tell
us
something
fun
about
you.
D
C
My
question:
that's
it!
Thank
you.
Thank
you
something
fun
about
me.
I
have
a
I'm
from
I'm
from
ottawa,
canada.
I
have
a
cat
named
harvey.
I
have
that
dna
thing
where
I
hate
cilantro.
B
All
right
yeah,
since
there
are
no
other
topics,
I
just
asked
something
to
like
other
folks,
so
I
don't
think
anyone
is
here
to
talk
about
this
fear,
but
I
generally
have
a
small
concern
with
this
approach
so,
basically
like
we
are
adding
support
for
an
environment
variable
which
will
allow
us
to
pick
the
bsp
stands
for
batch
span
processor.
We
call
it
batch
activity
processor,
so
there
are
like
few
configuration
parameters
which
will
allow
us
to
pick
the
batch
size,
the
export
interval
and
queue
size.
B
One
concern
which
I
shared
privately
was,
I
haven't
like
had
a
chance
to
commend
it
here
is
because
so,
when
you
set
these
enrollment
variables,
it's
going
to
affect
every
instance
of
batch
exporter
batch
time
processor.
So
if
you
have
like,
let's
say,
jager
and
zipkin
and
otlp,
you
call
the
extension
methods
like
adiger
at
zipkin,
add
out
lp
and
what
you
will
end
up.
Having
is
like
this
would
affect
the
settings
for
each
three
of
them.
B
There
is
no
environment
variable
to
specifically
set
the
delay
and
time
out
queue
size
for
individual
exporters.
B
It's
it
might
be
okay,
but
I
just
want
to
like
ask
like
whether
anyone
else
sees
this
as
an
issue.
So
specifically,
if
you
have
like
three
exporters
or
all
of
them
using
the
batch
activity-
exporter
like
by
default,
zipkinjager
and
otlp,
and
if
you
use
these
environment
variables
to
like
change
the
batch
size,
you
will
accidentally
or
inadvertently
affect
the
others
as
well.
So
does
anyone
see
any
concern
with
this
approach
in?
B
If
yes,
should
we
just
block
this
pr
now
and
come
back
when
we
have
a
better
way
of
like
fine-tuning
each
and
every
every
individual
exporter?
Or
do
you
not
see
this
as
a
problem
at
all?
So
if
anyone
has
some
context
thing
like
michael
did,
some
review
title
then
charge.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
what
I
just
described.
B
B
Have
one
two
three
mike
michael
and
tommy
maxwell,
I
guess
yeah.
So
I
was
specifically
asking
like
mike
blindshard
because
he's
the
only
one
in
this
group
the
person
was
riley
and
then,
of
course,
the
person
who
submitted
and
nobody
is
on
vacation,
so
he
won't
be
like
coming
back
this
month.
So
I
just.
B
But
did
you
understand
the
concern
which
I
was
saying
like
the
like
the
fact
that
modifying
these
ingrounding
variables
will
affect
every
instance
of
batch
export
processor,
which
means,
if
you
have
three
exporters,
all
of
them
would
be
equally
affected
like?
Would
you
see
that
as
a
problem
at
all,
or
it's
not
a
big
deal
at
all.
E
It's
definitely
not
a
problem
for
the
use
cases
that
I've
encountered
we're
kind
of
hamstring
by
the
spec
on
that
right.
There's
no
mechanism
in
there.
B
Yeah
this
you
know,
I
talked
to
robert
and
he
says,
like
the
same
problem
exist
in
all
other
languages
also,
and
the
spec
is
not
really
clear
about
like
like
defining
per
exporter
level
setting,
but
this
is
like
a
global
one
which
affects
all
of
them.
B
B
So
no
hurry
like
robert
will
be
on
vacation,
so
hopefully
like
someone
else
might
be
replacing
him
temporarily
so
I'll,
raise
it
and
say,
comment
in
the
pr
like.
Please
go
ahead
and
reply.
You
also
see
this
as
a
concern.
B
If
we
don't
hear
from
anyone
and
like
robert
or
his
replacement,
is
trying
to
push
this
through,
we'll
just
merge
it
in,
because
we
will
just
raise
it
as
a
concern.
If
nobody
sees
this
as
a
major
concern,
then
it's
probably
fine
and
all
these
supports
are
done
for
the
sake
of
photo
instrumentation
effort.
So
I'll
ask
someone
else
from
the
outer
instrumentation
to
see
if
this
is
a
problem
for
autumn
instrumentation.
Also,
okay,
yeah,
that's
pretty
much
it
like
michael.
Do
you
need
any
help
with
the
okay?
You
have
new
changes.
B
Yeah.
Do
you
need,
like
anything
like
to
be
discussed
for
the
migration
of
spina
cord
telemetry
module.
E
B
My
general
thinking
as
well
yeah,
okay,
yeah
and
alan
mentioned
that
he's
on
vacation
for
another
week
or
two.
So
we
won't
have
anyone
else,
commenting
other
than
me
and
maybe
like
really
so
yeah
to.
E
E
I
have
to
find
a
solution
for,
but
I
think
I'll
do
that
as
kind
of
a
separate
project,
the
baggage
means
like
restoring
baggage.
If
you
do
the
native
jobs,
exactly
how
the
baggage
works,
is
it's
an
async
local?
Every
time
you
change
it,
it
just
switches
that
current,
so
it
will
apply
to
the
current
thread
and
then
any
threads
that
the
execution
flows
to
downstream,
but
it
won't
go
back
up
to
like
the
root.
E
So
I
can't
exactly
save
it
to
restore
it
should,
however,
that
happens
in
iis
where
it
loses
the
async
locals,
I'm
not
even
sure
how
that
happens.
So
I'm
hoping
to
figure
out
a
way
to
re-reproduce
it.
So
I
can
test
any
potential
fix.
I
was
looking
at
asp.net
core
how
it
handles
its
http
context.
It
has
the
same
problem
with
it
flowing.
It
basically
has
like
a
wrapper
class
so
that
it
can
clear
that
wrapper
flows.
E
B
Okay,
got
it
yeah,
okay,
yeah
like
whenever
you
think
like
we
are
ready.
We
can
like
merge
it
to
main
and
start
shipping
it
out,
and
I
don't
think
like
we'll
use
one
dot
or
anytime
soon
I
mean
the
stable
for
instrumentation
anytime
soon.
There
is
no
not
much
progress
occurring
in
the
spec
for
that.
So,
based
on
what
I
see,
it
would
be
like
most
likely
we'll
ship
the
1.2
with
matrix
before
releasing
the
instrumentation
packages
as
stable.
So
we'll
have
plenty
of
time
to
address
any
concerns.
B
Okay,
if
there
are
no
other
questions,
we
will
end
early
and
see
you
all
next
week.