►
From YouTube: 2022-02-23 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
C
D
D
D
Yes,
so
this
is
the
one
thing
that
personally,
I
do
not
think
against
any
right
now
to
add
this
line.
We
can,
we
can
improve
the
docs
later
on.
There
is
an
issue
and
I
think
we
can
just
make
another
pass
later.
I
think
that
at
this
point
of
time,
even
adding
like,
I
think
this
will
not
give
any
harm
right.
F
No,
that
won't
be
any
harm.
Actually,
it
should
work
even
in
the
environment,
without
even
the
users,
knowing
it
will
start
working
and
resolve
with
diagnostic
source
issues.
D
D
There
was
something
like
oh
here
issues
without
milestone,
so
based
on
the
current
state
of
the
board,
I
just
assigned
the
existing
issues.
I
moved
them
to
zero
and
beta
to
one
zero,
zero
rc.
The
one
which
were
considered
was
the
beta
and
post
one
zero
zero,
which
were
considered
not
needed
for
one
zero
release,
but
we
have
still
some
issues
which
some
of
them
were
like.
I
felt
that
there
may
be
worth
discussing
there.
There
are.
D
C
Yeah
do
do
we
know
if
the
sdk
already
made
the
transition
or
I
I
haven't,
taken
a
look
at
what
the
sdk
is
doing
there.
Just
have
you
checked
with
the
sdk.
A
D
D
F
F
F
Not
to
put
it
we
can
just
if
we
want
to
remove,
we
will
get
this
removed
at
the
earliest.
Even
if
our
plan
is
to
do
a
release
in
the
april.
It
looks
like
by
the
april.
This
might
be
out
of
support,
so
does
not
make
sense
something
during
the
development
state.
We
keep
it
and
throw
it
away
when
we
release
it.
So
it's
better
to
have
a
462
itself
and
not
majority
of
the
users
are
going
to
get
benefit
with
461.
Also,
mostly,
they
will
be
on
462,
most
of
them
very.
Very
legacy.
F
D
So
this
one
is
based
partially
on
the
specification,
but
not
entirely
because
basically,
this
specification
defines
another
material
variable
called
auto,
lock
level,
but
it
does
not
specify
the
values.
There
is
an
issue
in
the
specification
to
to
describe
standardize
them
or
at
least
suggest
some
values,
but
the
issue
is
like
stole
and
nobody
just
wants
to.
It
feels
like
a
can
of
worms
and,
but
I
saw
but
based
on
other
other
other
sdks.
I
feel
that
this
is
like
these
are
the
values
that
are
pretty
safe
and
they
can
go
common
like
those.
D
Those
three
are,
I
think,
in
all
existing
sdks
which
use
this
environment.
This
word
is
not,
but
I
think
we
want
a
warning
level.
I
feel.
C
C
F
And
also,
if
we
have
like
one
model
like
somehow,
we
can
use
the
same
technique
as
the
sdk.
I
think
they
update
some
file
or
something
to
get
this
logs
collected.
F
If
we
can
also
rely
on
it,
our
shooting
will
become
easier
because
we
are
instrumenting
an
app
and
later
they
like
the
sdk
will
come
into
the
picture.
So
in
that
way,
in
a
one
like
unified,
like
log
enablement,
we
will
be
able
to
know
whether
the
issue
is
at
the
instrumentation
or
the
sdk
level.
So.
F
C
D
D
G
Yeah,
actually,
the
logic
extension
says:
seven
levels,
all
of
that
that
are
specified
plus
few
more.
D
C
C
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
it
makes
sense
for
beta
two,
maybe.
D
D
C
Oh
yes,
so
right
now
the
profiler
code
has
some
validation
in
there
that
tries
to
ensure
that
the
environment
variable
is
set
up
with
a
that
matches
a
predefined
path,
and
the
idea
here
is
that
perhaps
there
are
cases
where
the
startup
hook
is
actually
defined
elsewhere.
C
So
perhaps
there's
a
I
don't
know
vendor-specific
startup
book.
I.
D
G
D
D
F
So
we
had
two
work
planned
as
a
part
of
this.
One
is
the
additional
depth
which
is
complete
and
another.
One
itself
is
a
very
big
project.
I
did
not
start
the
work
on
it.
The
reason
is
like
we
remember.
We
are
relying
upon
the
dotnet
runtime
team
to
see
if
they
are
going
to
provide
a
workaround
to
fix
this.
So
if
they
provide
whatever
the
work
we
do
here,
it's
going
to
be
a
throwaway
one,
so
I'm
still
trying
to
chase
them
to
see.
There
is
something
they
are
considering
for
this
one.
D
Don't
you
mind
raj,
just
move
it
to
one
zero,
zero
c.
Yes,.
D
I
have
a
just
question:
rasmus:
is
it
related
to
the
newest
version
of
adapt
stream
code
or
not
really
or
additional
things?
I
see
additional
things
probably.
D
F
F
C
I
could
be
wrong
which
allows
us,
in
theory,
to
use
the
binding
redirect
workarounds.
Is
it.
G
A
D
D
Yeah
this
one,
the
thing
is,
I'm
not
sure.
Basically
it's
about
these
headers
because
it
was
created
this
issue
when
we
were
having
like
almost
a
lot
of
code
from
datadog
at
that
time.
D
I
think
we
simply
back.
Then
we
decided
to
keep
the
headers
from
the
data
dock
and
right
now
we
have
cleaned
a
lot
of
code
and
basically,
if
you
read
the
open
telemetry
like
rules
like
should
be
included,
not
a
must-have,
oh,
I
thought
it
is
must
have.
I
would
have
expected
a
must
yeah.
Now,
I'm
very
amazed
because
that's
all.
A
D
The
only
thing
that
I
would
like
to
have
it
automated
like
a
check,
I
think
that
the
sdk
is
already
doing
it,
so
it's
just
about
checking
how
they
are
doing
it,
so
you
suggest
to
put
it
in
beta,
because
that's
why
I,
chris
you
have
more
more
knowledge.
What's
going
on
with
the
specification
of
the
basically,
you
know,
governance,
etc.
D
F
D
C
D
D
D
F
No,
I
missed
this.
I
missed
going
through
this.
Oh,
this
is
the
same
thing
I
discussed.
I
have
been
chasing
the
dot-net
run
time.
F
I
want
to
follow
up
with
them
internally,
maybe
if
we
need
to
be
filed
externally,
I
would
expect
someone
from
the
other
end,
not
the
microsoft
guy,
who
is
filing
that
it
would
be
better.
I
believe,
oh
so
it's
fine,
we'll.
B
F
D
All
right,
chris,
any
anything
you
want
to
discuss
here
or.
C
Setting
up
the
scenario
what's
interesting
is
john
skeet
had
a
blog
post
sort
of
related
to
to
that
same
topic,
so
yeah
anyways
I've
had
trouble
with
my
vms
for
the
last
two
days,
so
I
should
be
able
to
get
back
to
it
later
today
or
tomorrow.
C
So
I'm
just
setting
up
a
repro
and
then
seeing
if
that
unhandled
exception
event
is
a
viable
option
for
us.