►
From YouTube: 2022-03-23 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).
A
A
Okay,
I
think
we
can
start.
Let's
see
what
do
we
have
in
the
agenda?
Yeah
log
data
model
is
stable.
Yes,
we
did
it
great.
This
is
a
great
milestone.
I
think
this
was
very
important
and
the
next
thing
is
to
declare
the
protocol
stable
and
the
p
data
in
the
collector.
Once
we
do
that,
it's
it's
it's
going
to
be
the
base
of
a
lot
of
the
code
that
we'll
write
so
great
job,
everyone,
okay!
So
what
do
we
have
next
log
collection?
Then?
I
think
this
is
yours.
B
Yes,
so
just
looking
for
more
eyes
on
this
pr
or
some
actual
approvals
at
some
point
here,
but
basically
I've
proposed
that
we'll
cut
a
release
of
the
log
collection
library
that
contains
all
the
breaking
changes
that
have
been
agreed
upon
so
far
and
there
are
five
or
six
pr's
there
that
are
listed
there.
I
think
they've
all
been
approved,
although
there
is
a
little
bit
of
ongoing
conversation
relevant
to
one
of
them,
but
in
general
I
think
like
dimitri.
B
If
you
could
take
a
look
at
some
point
or
if
anyone
else
has
opinions
would
like
to
hopefully
get
this
release
out
ideally
this
week.
But
obviously
we
need
to
address
all
concerns.
So
thanks.
D
Yeah
yeah
I'll
take
a
look
we're.
D
B
I
I
don't
particularly
feel
like
we
need
to
pick
that
version,
but
I
wanted
to
really-
and
this
would
have
been
a
major
version-
bumped
right
if
we,
if
we
were
already
1.0,
so
I
just
wanted
to
suggest.
Perhaps
we
indicate
this
a
little
bit
more
clearly
by
making
it
more
obvious
that
something
substantial
changed
here.
A
I
don't
think
this
is
going
to
be
the
last
change
before
we
declare
stable
right.
There
is
going
to
be
more
changes
before
we
reach
1.0,
so
it's
probably
still
business
as
usual,
even
though
maybe
it's
a
larger
volume
of
breaking
changes
compared
to
what
happened
in
the
past.
So
to
me
put
I
I
don't
see
the
need
to
to
have
any
any.
A
A
Okay,
cool,
so
the
other
thing
I
posted
there.
It's
removal
of
the
logger
name
from
the
otl
key.
The
field
is
already
deprecated
and
I
went
over
the
collector's
code
base
and
I
think
I
removed
the
usage
from
everywhere
from
all
of
the
components
or
asked
people
to
help
remove
it.
So
I
think
it's
no
longer
present
anywhere
in
the
collector
code
base
unless
I
missed
something
there,
but
we
can
take
another
look
there,
so
this
is
removing
it
from
the
protocol.
A
I
wanted
to
call
attention
to
this.
Just
in
case
some
of
the
logging
library,
implementations
still
use
the
log
record
name.
I
see
jack
is
here
jack.
Do
you
know
if,
if
you
use
that
in
the
java
implementation
at
all,
I
can
double
check,
but
I
don't
think
we
do
okay,
cool,
so
yeah,
and
maybe
I
should
also
ask
python-
seek
to
also
check
just
to
make
sure
we're
not
breaking
anything
to
make
sure
that
it's
first
removed
and
then
we
delete
from
the
otlp
once
that
is
done.
A
A
Oh
okay,
so
that's
on
tlp!
There
was
one
other
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
A
B
I
did
bring
this
up
last
week
just
to
ask
for
thoughts,
but
we
can.
We
can
put
this
out
there
again.
I
didn't.
I
didn't
really
get
any
feedback
last
week,
but
any
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
on
this
well.
Actually,
what
I'll
do
right
now
is
just
drop.
My
outline
into
the
doc.
B
D
Like
things
that
have
been
done
differently
in
contrib
and
collection
library,
it
would
be
nice
if
we
can
align
them
to
the
same
approach,
for
example
like
on
marshall,
and
we
should
use
map
structure
and
all
those
things,
and
it
would
be
probably
the
best
if
we
can
move
it
to
the
same
repository.