►
From YouTube: Open Telemetry's Personal Meeting Room
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
B
C
C
E
D
A
A
Is
the
okay
so
basically
long
story
short
I
created
an
issue
to
create
to
like
Define
to
Define
or
try
to
standardize
somehow
the
how
to
enable
disable.
The
our
instrumentation
libraries,
because
I
saw
so
so
differences
between
how
datadoc
is
doing
how
how
Java
how
Java
Auto
is
doing
and
I
also
contacted
a
guy
from
us
who
basically
he's
also
a
maintainer
in
auto
collector.
A
So
this
is
to
share
his
opinion
also
from
because
he
does
a
lot
of
kubernetes
and
one
thing
he
got
the
proposal.
But
the
second
thing,
which
is
more
important.
He
told
me
about
a
working
group
which
has
which
I
don't
know.
If
any
of
us
is
aware,
there's
a
working
group
and
not
here
called
configuration
working
group,
so
so
open,
Telemetry
configuration
and
basically
it
has
been
created
because
of
the
issues
connected
with
environmental
viables.
So
they
wanted
also
to
propose
to
create
some
kind
of
scheme
for
a
configuration
file.
A
So
this
is
a
very
new
working
group.
I
know
I
do
not
know
what
is
the
difference
between
a
sick
and
a
working
group
yet,
but
I
think
that
right
now,
guys
who
are
there
involved
are
more
working
on
this
SDK
site
and,
in
my
opinion,
it's
more
even
important
for
auto
instrumentation
than
for
for
SDK.
When
you
can
do
things
in
code.
Usually
so
right
now,
I
see
that
there
are
some
people
him
from
the
go,
go
SDK
I,
Java,
probably
he's.
A
Maybe
he
may
be
promised
instrumentation
from
Airline
and
Dot
net
and
Dot
net.
So
I
think
that
it
would
be
good
if
some
of
us
will
be
there
involved.
Currently,
the
problem
is
that
the
current
meeting
time
is
very
late
at
Friday,
so
it's
like
7
P.M
Friday,
so
for
for
Europe
I
do
not
yeah
yeah
I
proposed
I
started.
A
E
I
I
I
can
join
the
group
start
to
to
meet
them
there,
but
I
think
I
will
start
with
the
issue
that
you
opened
because
I
don't
have
much
of
the
context.
A
Later
this
should
cover
later
I
just
wanted
to
make
also
ask
you
to
take
a
look
at
this
slack
Channel
Auto
config
file,
and
at
least
you
have
at
least
so
that
everyone
knows
where,
where
to
think
five
places,
ask
questions
Etc.
At
least
everyone
is
aware
of
it,
because
I
do
not
want
to
have
problems
in
future.
That
will
say:
hey.
We
don't
like
it.
A
E
Yeah
or.
A
F
So
so
is
it
like
making
it
generic
across
everything
like
what
configuration
setting
like,
say,
someone
is
setting
up
from
the
environment
variable
what
they
should
follow
like
it's
a
kind
of
standard
for
everyone,
yeah.
A
They
want
to
make
a
standard
across
different
languages,
exactly
so
like
their
standardized
environmental
variables.
They
want
to
have
a
standardized
config
files
as
I
understand
like
a
yaml
XML
whatever
or
maybe
even
it
will
be
a
data
model.
Maybe
it
won't
be
even
a
concrete
file,
a
file
type
I'm,
not
sure.
F
A
They
are
starting,
it's
one,
gonna
be
delay
as
for
sure.
So,
as
you
see
it
starts
like
the
issues
created
19
days
ago,
there's
a
there's,
a
repository
created
by
Tyler,
which
which
I
cannot
find
right
now.
E
A
E
Will
take
a
look
at
that,
but
we
don't
have
yet
even
the
hotel
itself
repository,
because
this
I
see
very.
E
E
Open
it
and
I
will
give
her
a
brief
explanation
and
what
I'm
proposing,
because
I
I
do
want
to
hear
from
folks
Corner
case
or
stuff
that
we
may
need
to
test
or
perhaps
give
up
on
this
path
from
the
start.
But
anyway,
so,
while
pioto
Was
preparing
the
pr
for
upgrade
the
package,
he
found
the
issue
on
the
dotnet
framework.
E
The
issue
is
that
when
we
build
our
runtime
folder
the
trace
Tracer
home
net
462,
because
the
way
that
nougat
package
resolution
Works,
we
have
one
package
that
depends
on
a
specific
version
of
system
memory
and
other
package
that
depends
on
a
different
one.
So
the
new
get
package
resolution.
When
you
are
building
class
libraries
pickups
one
the
latest
inputs
there,
but
that
in
practice
requires
actually
an
application
to
resolve,
because
when
the
application
is
built,
then
config
file
is
generated
for
the
XZ.
E
So
what
I
was
proposing
is
to
rewrite
the
metadata
token
on
this
on
our
runtime
folder,
because
the
error,
in
this
case
the
application,
doesn't
have
the
same
dependence.
The
assembly
is
not
part
of
the
framework.
What
happens
is
kind
of
one
assembly
in
this.
In
this
case,
Google
Proto
buffer
was
compiled
against
system
memory.
Four
zero
one
one
other
package
was
compiled
against
system
memory
4012.
E
So
what
I'm
proposing
is
that
we
should
scan
the
runtime
folder.
Therefore,
the
next
net
462
is,
can
see
the
versions
that
we
have
there
and
fix
up
all
the
versions
how
the
metadata
tokens
that
are
there.
So
then
at
least
we
don't
have
this
problem
from
our
packages
and
the
application
doesn't
need
to
be
reviewed,
doesn't
need
to
have
a
reference
to
the
nuget
package.
Anything
like
that.
E
We
can
just
pick
up
a
framework
and
fix
up
this
kind
of
mismatch
version
in
some
outside
conversation
with
pr3.
E
He
raised
the
question
about
actual
code
sign
how
this
is
going
to
affect
stuff
with
real
code
sign,
and
my
first
impression
is
that
typically
the
packages,
the
the
assemblies
that
we
are
going
to
change,
they
are
not
called
sign,
but
I
do
think
we
have
to
test
for
that
case
and
Rasmus
raised
the
issue
about
the
system
Diagnostics,
because
that
have
state,
and
this
thing
the
way
that
it
is
supposed
friends
if
the
application
had
a
reference
to
the
system,
memory
that
I'm
using
in
the
concrete
case
of
the
pr
the
application
itself
is
going
to
load
whatever
version
it's
linked
against
a
built
against.
E
E
That's
a
problem
for
a
system
diagnosis
because
we
keep
the
state
of
spans
of
this
stuff
there.
What
I'm
proposing
here
is
not
to
address
the
issue
about
system
diagnosis
here
it's
to
address
that
separately,
but
to
correct
this
issue
internally.
E
So
that's!
Basically,
the
proposal,
I
I,
put
a
very
simple
snapshot
of
what
I
did
just
showing,
but
that's
the
outline
of
the
proposal
and
I
would
like
to
hear
if
the
besides
the
concerns
that
PRT
and
Rasmus
raised
it.
If
there
is
anything
else
that
we
should
be
looking
here
or
taking
care
or
why
this
is,
maybe
it
doesn't
work?
You.
D
Know
there
isn't
one
more
issue
like
if
customer
has
a
like
indirect
reference
to
system
dot
memory
from
his
app
and
if
they
have
the
assembly
redirect
already,
this
might
run
into
an
issue.
Normally
they
will
get
exceptions
like
method,
not
found.
D
All
those
exceptions
will
arise
and
it's
very
difficult
to
control
this.
Also,
for
example,
Google
protobuf
always
needs
a
latest
version
and
is
a
the
application,
whichever
it
users
might
need
a
even
a
higher
version
than
what
Google
protobuf
uses
so
in.
In
those
cases
we
may
run
into
an
issue
yeah
the.
D
Will
resolve
that
problem,
but
whatever
we
are
trying
to
do
my
phrase,
all
the
issue
80
of
the
issue,
but
20
of
the
case.
We
should
have
a
like
a
better
Diagnostics
to
point
out.
So
this
is
what
is
causing
an
issue
and
they
need
to
have
a
assembly
redirect
or
a
new
get
whatever
the
directions
that
we
take.
E
Yeah
I
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
things-
and
this
is
not
on
this
issue,
but
this
was
something
that
I
mentioned
to
Rasmus
is
you're
right.
We
can
get
a
better
Diagnostics,
because
what
we
do
right
now
on
the
assembly
resolve
is
that
if
we
see
the
name
and
the
name
match
what
we
have
in
our
runtime
folder,
we
try
to
load
that
we
shouldn't
do
that
in
the
framework.
E
You
know
because,
as
you
said,
if
the
application
has
other
version,
when
you
the
application,
is
going
to
bring
the
assembly
and
that
should
be
loaded
successfully.
But
when
we
try
to
bring
our
own
version,
then
we
are
gonna,
hit
the
assembly
resolve
and
we
should
just
load
what
our
version
have.
E
One
thing
that
I
think
that
what
you're
saying
about
the
versions?
Actually,
we
need
to
test
that,
but
I'm
pretty
confident
that
actually
for
the
framework
it
works,
because
the
framework
is
able
to
have
this
multiple
different
versions
loaded
into
the
same
process.
You
know.
So
if
Google
protobuf
needs
the
latest
version
of
system
memory
and
the
application
is
built
against
that,
it's
going
to
bring
that
version
whatever
it
is.
E
D
The
entire
flow
is
correct,
like
the
framework
should
ex
like
work
as
expected,
but
we
might
have
seen
in
a
lot
of
the
production
cases
like
they
will
have
an
like
binding
redirect,
like
that's,
some
really
binding
redirect.
So
that
complicates
this
scenario.
So,
apart
from
that,
if
they
don't
have
that
assembly
like
binding,
redirect
I
I
think
the
flow
you
explained
works
very
well.
Actually
framework
is
smart
enough
to
load
it
from
the
appropriate
spaces.
G
G
It
would
basically
it
would
take
more
work.
We
would
have
to
on
every
module
load,
see
what
assembly
references
a
module
has
and
we
could
even
update
those
like
assembly.
References
at
it'd
be
tough
I,
don't
know
if
it's
actually
feasible,
but
theoretically
we
could
update
the
assembly
references
so
that
we
change
the
version
number
of
assembly,
it's
referencing.
So
then,
even
perhaps
I
could
even
avoid
The
Binding
redirect
issues
because
we
changed
the
Target
that
is
being
searched
for
to
a
higher
number
than
maybe
was
specified
in
this
assembly.
Redirect.
E
E
That
said,
I
will
double
check
if
the
metadata
API
allows
update
change,
delete
because,
basically,
what
you
want
to
do
is
take
in
one
entry
and
change
it.
Its
value.
I
know
that
the
API
allows
adding
you
know,
I,
don't
know
if
it
allows
changing
what's
already
there,
because
if
it
doesn't
allow,
we
go
to
this
problem
that
we
need
to
check
out
the
IL
to
change
the
tokens
on
the
Fly
and
that
I
think
is
going
to
be
much
harder.
G
E
So
I
don't
know
the
internals
of
the
Biden,
redirect
that's
on
the
framework
run
time
and
I.
Don't
think
that
code
is
public,
so
I
don't
know
how
that
works,
but
because
the
tokens,
if
you
you
probably
are
a
red
note
that
but
you
have
the
assembly
ref,
the
I
think
the
math
method
ref
and
they
are
compressed
right.
So
the
compressor
doesn't
matter.
E
But
basically,
if
we
change
just
that
entry
and
the
entries
goes
to
a
table,
the
the
thing
that
I'm
doing
right
now
with
says
you
in
this
example
I
change
the
table.
That's
why
I
don't
need
to
change
any
fingers
for
the
io,
and
if
we
lack
the
API
to
update
on
the
profiler,
then
we
have
to
change
our
metadata
tokens
I.
Think
that's
going
to
be
pretty
hard.
E
G
Oh
and
the
one
more
thing
I
had
regarding
feedback,
I
I,
don't
anticipate
the
code,
signing
concern
being
an
issue
I
think
it's
just
used
for
identity,
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
used
for
any
sort
of
like
Authentication,
so
I,
don't
think.
There's
any
issue
there.
G
What
bites
are
we
changing?
I
thought
this
was
all
being
done
just
during
the
runtime
of
the
application.
E
G
E
So
I
think,
overall,
from
this
conversation,
the
concerns
I
think
the
first
thing.
I'm
gonna
look
really
confirmed
that
we
can't
update
them
metadata
talking
via
the
CLR
profile
API,
because
that's
the
preferable,
because
we
don't
change
and
we
don't
even
need
to
even
consider
the
case
of
code
sign
because
that's
done
by
the
the
profiling
API.
So,
but
if
that's
not
available,
then
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
testing
and
really
validating.
If
this
works
with
code
sign.
A
Okay,
let
me
change
later:
okay,.
A
So
they
are
free,
but
those
two
are
blocked
by
the
release
before
I
go.
Oh,
maybe
right
now
regarding
the
release.
I
have
one
proposal
just
want
to
find
it
in
the
issue,
because
I
try
to
describe
it
as
good
as
possible
in
in
text.
A
So
basically
I
was
thinking
to
change
this
release,
to
not
mark
it
as
beta
just
saying
that
it's
not
a
prerelease,
the
reasons
are,
are
the
are
the
following.
First
of
all,
auto
operator
is
already
is
already
using
our
Auto
instrumentation.
We
have
some
feedback
that,
basically
we
could
assume
that
it's
working
and
people
are
using
it
already
in
production
because
of
the
issues
that
we
have.
It's
usually
just
somebody
was
using
wrong
version,
or
this
insertion
script
was
not
working.
A
There
is
also
an
issue
to
use
the
zero
five
zero
version
in
on
the
open,
Telemetry
demo,
and
the
other
thing
is
the
presidents
that
other
Auto
components
such
as
collector
Ultra
operator
are
using
are
publishing
the
non-stable
releases,
as
you
know,
as
releases.
So
if
you
go
to
auto
collector,
for
example,
collector.
A
A
A
Same
here
and
I
think
that
there
were
other
components
which,
with
hotel,
which
are
basically
saying
that
they
are
not
stable,
but
they
can.
They
are
already
released
and
the
other
reason
when
I
want
to
propose
to
omit
the
suffix.
Is
that
I
think
that
our
next
release
should
be
a
better,
because
the
auto
SDK
for.net
right
now
is
in
RC
phase
and
I
think
that
we
could
create
a
new
next
release
with
the
new
plugins
mechanisms
Etc
created
by
Rasmus,
but
as
a
beta
for
us
to
to
internally
work
on
improving
it.
A
D
I
think,
as
for
the
same
were
like
if
the
major
version
is
zero,
it's
considered
as
beta
I
believe,
so
we
don't
need
to
add
it
only
when
the
major
version
changes
to
one
it
is
considered
as
a
normal
General
availability
one.
It's.
B
A
Nothing
repeat
again:
you
want
to
list
all
instrumentations.
C
B
A
But
I
think
I
know
what
I
understand
your
concern.
So
I
was
thinking
about.
Just
give
me
a
second
here
having
a
some
additional
column
like,
for
example,
stable
and
experimental,
for
example,
right
something.
B
A
A
So
currently,
and.
G
I'm
sorry
I
was
just
jump
in
and
say
it.
I
brought
it
up
in
the
chat,
but
my
one
concern
is
if
nougat
allows
us
to
do
this
being
a
nuget,
stable,
nuget
package,
referencing
pre-release
packages.
C
D
Think
new
gate
uses
the
last
parameter:
iPhone
beta
or
iPhone
RC
whatever.
So,
if
we
don't
have
it,
it
will
allow
us
to
use
sorry
if
I
cut
someone
very
interested
did
you.
You
were
about
to
say.
F
E
I
I
I
think
so
so
I
I
would
say
that
makes
sense
to
me.
That
should
be
the
key.
F
Yeah
one
thing:
I
I
once
again,
probably
I'm
very
new,
so
I
mean
when
we
are
when
we
are
releasing
these
versions,
how
how
we
are
like
how
we
are
also
doing
the
work
fixes
like
generally
like
when,
once
we
release,
let's
say
0.5.0,
let's
say
there
are
some
works
right
like
how
you
are
doing
those
kind
of
things
like?
F
Are
we
then
again
we'll
be
doing
a
0.5.1,
then
eventually
another
major
release
like
0.6,
something
like
that?
Oh.
B
F
C
A
So
so
you
think
that,
right
now
we
can
keep
this
as
it
is
no
need
to
change
the
con.
The
config
okay,
I.
A
A
live
document,
stability.
F
F
G
We
do
have
integration
tests
so
that
we
can
launch
the
auto
instrumentation
and
validate
that
we
are
getting
spans
for
like
well
asp.net,
core
or
stuff
like
that.
So
we
have
a
couple
of
those
set
up
already,
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
have
one-to-one
yet
with
all
the
instrumentations,
but
we
have
a
subset
right
now.
A
Yeah
yeah,
so
here
it
is
kind
of
described
that,
basically,
our
integration
tests
are
testing
against
the
lowest
supported,
but
non-vulnerable
version
of
some
Library
and
regarding
the
latest
versions,
which
I
think
you
have
asked.
The
only
thing
which
we
rely
on
right
now
is
the
PRS
created
by
the
panda
bot.
A
So
data
DOC,
for
example,
has
the
school
tests
that
are
created
against
against
a
multiple
versions
of
a
library,
and
we
should
I
think
we
have
an
issue
for
it
for
like
five
to
release,
and
we
should
address
it
later
sooner
than
later,
to
have
more
confidence,
especially
to
check
the
latest
version
and
the
oldest
supported
version,
and
maybe
something
in
between
there's
a
major
major
version
in
between,
for
example,.
E
Yeah,
we
do
have
an
issue
for
that
to
try
to
add
that
to
our
pipeline,
probably
you'll
be
something
that
either
we
trigger
manually
or
something
because
it's
very
costly,
but
we
do
have
the
intention
of
facilitating
tests
in
multiple
versions.
E
F
My
point
is
like
how
how
do
we
know
that
our
let's
say
we
release
0.5.0
version
whether
people
have
like
outside
people
have
tested
it,
and
if
there
are,
if
they
are
logging,
any
box,
so
I
I
think.
D
F
B
A
E
And
just
to
make
one
thing
clear:
we
do
have
a
nougat
package
that
we
build,
but
we
are
not
publishing
nuget
package.
Okay.
So
at
this
stage
we
we
have
the
the
bundles
with
the
profiling,
but
we
we
are
not
publishing
any
new
get
packages
yet.
A
A
B
A
B
A
F
A
A
A
A
I
think
if
you
write
something
here,
then
I
will
be
able
to
assign
to
you
I
think
I
think
I
found
it
somewhere.
Okay,
next
one
yeah
and
this
one
Paulo
do
you
want
to
discuss
it?
Maybe
no.
E
No,
no,
no
I,
I
I,
just
think
I
I
took
a
look
at
the
Java
implementation.
I
think
doing
as
Java
is
a
good
is
a
good
format.
I
I
kind
of
had
first
didn't
like
it
have
a
bunch
of
environment
variables
and
I,
don't
like
very
much
the
case,
sensitivity
stuff
about
the
name
of
the
instrumentation,
but
it's
reasonable.
The
way
that
Java
did
and
I
think
we
should
follow
the
president.
We
with
this.
We
don't
have
the
lists
anymore.
You
just
have
enabled
for
each
instrumentation
and
one
that
is
default.
E
The
default
should
say
our
instrumentations
are
enabled
by
default
or
our
instrumentations
are
disabled
by
default.
So
I
think
we
should
just
follow
the
same
pattern
as
Java.
So.
A
A
A
Erasmus,
so
this
is
about
adding
more
test
coverage.
C
A
I
think
the
comment
was
about
making
HTTP
client,
instrumentation,
lazy
and
I.
Think
in.net
7.
There
is
yeah
there's
a
different
Source,
because
4.net
7
there
there's
no
need
for
the
this
kind
of
wrapper.
That
translates
to
make
to
make
Auto
compliance.
I
think
the
library
of
4.7
is
already
Auto
compliant
right.
A
G
S
for
you
saying
NET
Framework
would
reference
to
version
7,
assistant.net,
http.
H
No
I
mean
like
net
six
version,
so
basically,
if
you're
using
an
86
SDK
and
your
referencing
HTTP
packages,
seven
seventh
version.
G
I'm
not
sure,
if
that's
possible
well,
unless
there's
a
system
in
HTTP
nuget
package,
but
I
think
it
only
tops
out
at
version.
4.3.Something
I
think
it
might
be
built
in
at
this
point.
H
G
H
A
We
have
only
10
minutes,
left
I'm,
just
making
notes
like
this,
that
to
double
check
it
after
off,
like
that
double
check
after
after
the
SDK
bump
and
it's
possible
to
have
duplicate
spans
EG,
if
it
is
possible
to
reference
not
seven,
zero,
zero.
A
I
will
put
it
125
5.1,
which
should
be
for
our
next
SDK
release.
One
two
three.
A
This
is
about
refactoring
after
one
of
tprs,
we
have
like
two
or
three
places,
two
places
or
one
I,
think
two
places
where
we
have
like,
where
initialization
is
done
by
creating
a
non-trackable
object
like
new,
like
which
looks
like
you
know,
Enterprise
side
effects.
So
are
you
just
putting
it
as
a
milestone
zero
by
5.5.2
and
yeah?
Maybe
I'll
try
to
take
a
look
if
I
have
a
spare
time.
A
Okay
relates
to
I'll
just
check
what
is
so.
This
one
is
for
zero
by
two
I
put
it
the
same
way
Paulo
to
zero.
Five,
two
like
in
the
same
way
as
the
formatting,
okay,
yeah.
D
Sure
so,
if
we
have
a
dotnet
like
3.1
or
5.0,
and
if
customer
goes
and
enables
the
auto
instrumentation,
it
crashes
the
process
and
if
you
could
look
at
the
call
stack
it
logs.
D
If
you
go
to
the
top,
it
does
not
say
anything
about
Auto
instrumentation
at
all,
and
the
startup
is
not
loaded
and
we
won't
be
able
to
write
this
information
to
a
log
file
so
which
is
really
bad.
Customer
has
no
option
to
know
that
the
who
is
causing
this
issue,
so
this
is
one
of
the
drawback
of
using
this
startup
hook.
D
D
If
not,
if
you
just
walk
through
the
stack,
there
is
no
way
for
them
to
identify
it
and
again,
if
you
look
at
the
perspective,
if
customer
goes
and
like
uses
it
separately,
it's
fine.
If
you
look
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
the
cloud
providers
in
a
button
click,
they
are
going
to
enable
this
one.
So
when
they
enable
you'll,
not
really
know
what
is
the
dotnet
version,
they
use
and
all
so.
In
this
cases
it's
going
to
cause
a
massive
failures.
D
Implementation
like
this,
not
gracefully
crashing
or
our
design
goal,
is
right.
If
there
is
invalid
configuration,
we
need
to
log
and
crash
the
application,
but
that
won't
happen
here.
We
just
crashed
the
application.
A
C
A
D
D
3.28,
even
it
happens
with
3.0
also,
if
someone
would
have
used
our
startup
hook
earlier
with
3.0,
it
would
have
definitely
crashed
them,
but
considering
like
3.0
2.1
2.2,
everything
went
out
of
support
before
like
three
years.
The
usage
of
that
application
is
very
less
so
3.0
and
5.2
just
went
out
of
support
and
it
will
be
there
for
another
one
to
two
years,
and
the
number
of
issues
that
we
are
going
to
see
is
much
more
when
compared
to
the
other
space.
D
So,
though,
we
removed
the
support
for
net3
and
Dot
Net
5
from
the
auto
instrumentation,
because
it
has
reached
the
end
of
life,
but
with
our
removal
if
dot,
net,
core
3.1
or
dot
not
5.0
uses
our
latest
version
of
Auto
instrumentation
package.
We
just
crashed
them
and
on
the
startup
and
the
crashing
stack
will
look
like
what
I
have
pasted
there.
It
will
not
have
anything
any
information
related
to
Auto
instrumentation,
so
customers
or
users
won't
be
able
to
identify
where
the
issue
is
coming
from.
D
So
this
is
an
issue
with
DOT
net
startup
hook.
I
had
reported
it
already,
and
this
is
fixed
in
6.0.
If
six,
if,
for
example,
if
someone,
if
you
have
a
startup
hook
in
7.0
and
if
people
from
if
have
a
6.1
use
it,
it
will
not
crash
an
app
in
that
case.
So
this
issue
is
fixed
there,
but
not
fixed
in
3.0
and
5.0.
So.
F
D
We
have
to
have
this
startup
hook:
CS
approach
targeted
to
dot
net
core
3.1
Excel
for
the
time.
D
Yeah
correct
and
again
the
next
thing
also,
my
recommendation
in
Tracer
home
is
like
net
core
6.0
is
little
confusing
if
I'm
a
7.0
customer
and
there
is
a
folder
called
as
net
6.0,
it
is
a
little
confusing.
Probably
we
should
just
name
it
as
net
core
or
just
a
net,
so
it
would
be
easier
because
they
don't
need
to
know
the
version.
Probably
we
should
work
to
see
if
we
need
to
changes
names
in
the
Tracer
home.
Also,
maybe
you
can
handle
that
as
a
separate
issue.
A
Do
you
want
to
have
a
release
with
with
some
fix
before
we
bump
the
auto
SDK
or
it's.
D
Not
you
know
we
can
just
do
it
in
the
next
one.
Also
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
the
only
problem
with
that
would
be
like
the
world.
This
version
will
have
a
higher
version
of
the
dotnet
framework
and
the
next
version
will
have
the
little
lower
version.
If,
if
we
are
fine
with
that,
we
could
go
with
it.
D
B
A
C
F
B
Yes,
exactly
and
if
we
do
it,
we
should
break
it
once
not
twice,
because
we
have
at
least
one
question
related
to
changing
the
the
folder.
So
if
we
can
handle
it
tomorrow
or
tomorrow
morning
easily,
we
will
do
it.
D
Think
Peter
has
already
addressed
this
in
the
nuclear
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
review
that
I
think
that
should
take
care
of
it.