►
From YouTube: 2022-04-20 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
A
A
A
My
screen,
yes,
I
see
meeting
notes,
screen
meeting
screen
with
meeting
notes
right
just
make
sure.
Okay,
okay,
yeah,
feel
free
to
add
any
any
topic
to
the
agenda
for
today.
A
I
got
one
topic
that
I
got
an
internal
ask
about
invoking
open,
telemetry
state
plus
plus
from
from
other
language.
I
think,
what's
the
language
probably
rust,
that
trying
to
call
our
api
from
rust.
I
think
I
asked
the
the
team,
the
team
member
to
come
to
this
community
meeting
for
more
context,
but
since
he's
not
coming,
but
I
still
record
the
ask
here.
A
Yeah,
so
the
first
requirement
is,
I
think,
build
our
our
open.
Telemetry
component
has
deal.
I
think
there
was
long
discussion
on
this
and
the
currently
there's
so
there's
no
motivation
of
doing
that.
C
A
D
D
A
I
don't
remember
what
is
the
requirement
of
header
only
api,
where
is
it
coming
from,
but
probably
just
a
best
practice
for
c
plus
class,
but
I
haven't
seen
anywhere
since
this
is
our
hard
requirement
for
us,
maybe
just
for
convenient,
for
people
to
to
include
or
to
call
our
api.
A
A
C
C
A
B
B
A
A
A
And
as
look
at
this
one,
I'm
thinking
about,
I
look
at
the
previous,
the
matrix
example
seems
like
there
seems
no
say,
make
a
build
screen
right.
That's
a
so
beautiful.
E
A
A
E
Updates,
so
you
need
to
go
to
the
bottom
of
this.
E
Make
a
separate,
async
batch
and
ac
async
batch
span
processor
like
so
that,
okay,
the
async
changes
will
be
different
from
the
existing
batchman
processing.
So
this
is
the
task
on
that.
A
E
All
the
async
batch
pan
and
lock
spam
process
has
been
written
deriving
from
the
batch
band
processor.
E
E
E
A
Okay,
and
also
this
pr
goes
to,
I
think
I.
E
There's
one
more
pier
raised
by
owen,
which
also
needs
to
be
reviewed,
so
once
my
changes
gets
submitted
and
owens
changes
get
submitted,
maybe
then
we
can
think
of
merging
it,
but
this
needs
to
be
reviewed
thoroughly.
I
guess
once
we
raise
it
separate
pierre
for
merging
also.
A
Okay,
so
when
your
change,
your
change
and
the
ovens
change
are
merged
to
this
branch.
Do
we
need
another
review
or
we
can
just
decide
if
it
is
mature
enough
and
we
can
go
ahead
too
much
domain.
E
I
feel
we
should
also
do
one
more
set
of
review,
because
it's
better,
we
do
that,
so
that
we
don't
miss
anything
okay,
yes,
because
there
are
quite
a
lot
of
changes
like
on
this
branch.
We
have
submitted
around
four
or
five
peers
together,
both
of
me
and
owen.
So
so
all
those
five
peers
will
now
be
raised
as
a
single
pr.
So
I
feel
we
should
do
one
more
round
of
review
again.
E
E
There
is
no
specific
dependence
for
this,
because
my
changes
are
independent
of
this.
As
of
now.
A
A
E
A
E
E
A
Whether
any
api
breaking
change,
so
I
think
or
just
added
a
new
async
setup
api.
A
Sorry,
I
didn't
get
you
come
again.
I
mean.
Does
this
well,
this
change
any
existing
api
that
behavior
the
semantics.
E
A
Okay,
okay,
this
one,
I
think,
still
I'm
going
for
review.
So,
let's
keep
reviewing
it.
E
Yeah
lalit
had
mentioned
somewhere
that
he
would
be
anyway
reviewing
these
peers
related
racing
changes
over
the
weekend.
So.
A
A
A
D
D
Okay,
so
this
this
one,
I
think
I
have
the
laser
pr
for
this,
and
this
is
basically
the
battery
collection
for
ac
instruments.
It's
basically
similar
to
what
we
are
doing
for
sync
instruments.
D
The
only
thing
different
is
that,
instead
of
the
applications
and
recalling
a
record
on
the
sync
on
the
instrument,
we
are
pulling
the
pulling
the
data
from
the
from
I
mean
using
the
callback
we
are
pulling
the
data
it
does.
There
are
some
issues
I
think,
which
we
already
discussed
with
the
sr
also
like
interpret
multiple
callbacks
configuration
if
the
same
callback
should
not
be
called
multiple
times,
which
is
not
supported
right
now
that
so,
if
you
just
go
to
this,
just
go
to
the
description
of
this.
D
D
D
And
and
this
this,
if
you
have
to
support
this,
that
means
that
we
have
to
somehow
ensure
that
the
callback
should
be
called
only
once
and
just
come
with.
I
think
there
are
two
issues
this
one
and
the
other
one
also
so
so
that
I
mean
and
that
this
ratio
is
still
open,
there's
a
change
in
the
specification.
D
This
is
still
open,
so
I
haven't
really
incorporated
the
changes
I
think
has
on
which
you
are
discussing.
That
java
has
already
done
that
they've
done
the
design
change,
so
the
pr
which
I
have
raised
it
does
not
have
that
design
case.
I
have
some
thoughts
how
to
implement
that.
So
that
should
not
be
a
bigger
change.
I
mean
we
do.
D
Okay,
so
so
yeah,
so
just
just
wanted
to
call
out,
I
mean,
that's
probably
I
mean
I
felt
that
we
can.
We
can
do
it,
click
create
a
ticket
to
track
it,
and
probably
we
can
do
it
afterwards.
D
D
D
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
A
D
We
are
saying,
no,
I
think
we
we
didn't
discuss
it,
I
mean
it
was
always
there
I
mean
the
old
old
primitives
also
was
there.
So
I
think
probably
we
just
continued
there
here.
Only
and-
and
I
think
most
of
the
other
sticks
are
having
in
the
main
port
report.
I
saw
python
javascript.net
all
have
their
privileges
exported
in
the
mail
repo.
D
D
So
there
was
a
there
was
a
issue
raised
in
the
specs
repo
if
we
can
enable
the
batch
processor,
but
that
issue,
I
think,
was
not
accepted,
so
we
are
going
to
have
these
under
the
feature
plaque.
So
I
think
there
is
no
timeline,
I
think,
as
soon
as
we
can
get
it
in
a
cleaner
way.
I
think
we
should
be
good
to
incorporate
in
in
our
repo.
A
D
D
This
is,
this
is
not
required
by
the
specs.
I
don't
know
this
exporter
probably
needs
more
clarity.
We
don't
need
it
actually.
Concurrent
http
session
does
not
make
sense
if
that,
if,
if
there
are
not
simultaneous
span,
uploads
the
request
going
from
processor,
so
this
this,
this
change
is
only
an
exporter.
It
only
makes
sense.
If
there
are
simultaneous
batch
requests
from
processor,
then
only
I
think
these
changes
will
be
helpful.
E
Yeah
yeah:
this
is
changes
requested,
so
as
discussed,
we
I
raised
one
more
pr,
like
one
more
appear
on
this,
to
segregate
a
sync
and
sync
right
depending
on
that.
So
that's
what
it's
working
on.
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
D
A
A
A
Mean
as
this,
the
issue
is
reported
against
our
latest
release.
We
need
to
do
a
patch
release.
A
I
haven't
checked
which,
which
pr
which
commit
introduced
to
this
but
yeah.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
whether
or
not
to
do
a
patch
release
or
not
yeah,
because
this
this
is
kind
of
the
the
run
time
summer
run
time.
Exception
happens
when
we're
giving
with
when
linking
to
specific
library
right.
A
A
D
Telemetry
exp
without
open,
telemetry
sdk,
then
we
will
have
a
problem
I
mean,
but
we
don't
have
that
use
case
right.
Where
is
the
use
case
where
we
only
use
open,
telemetry
exp,
not
the
sdk.
We
don't
have
use
case
that
I
mean
if
we
use
open,
telemetry,
ext
and
open
elementary
sdk,
then
open
telemetry
api
will
be
automatically
because
it's
automatically
located
or
api
is
linked
with
sdk
right.
So
we
will
get
all
the
definitions
from
api.
A
A
B
A
A
Link
that,
together
with
our
sdk,
there
could
be
a
problem,
because
the
current
intention
is
doesn't
include
any
any
like
the
std
view
stuff,
but
when
linked
with
sdk
it
could
be,
it
could
still
be
linked
to
there.
Maybe
some
confusion.
I'm
not
will
I'm
still
not
very
clear
with
the
full
details
how
this
could
crash
cause
crash
or
type.
D
I
think
this
one
just
attempt
to
create
tracer
just
go
to
the
world
to
download.
D
Names
and
version
of
existing
places
this.
I
think
this
is
a
good
finding
and
we
do
have
an
issue
in
our
otlp
exporter.
D
D
A
D
D
Earlier,
I
don't
see
anything
new,
it
is
review
the
logger
implementation
for
the
stable
this
log
I
mean
I
have.
What
do
you
think
coming
from
what
should
we
do
with
blogger,
because
all
our
the
new
sdk
is
there?
Should
we
start
working
on
that
or
what
should
what.
D
D
D
E
D
A
Okay,
okay,
I
think
I'm
not
sure
we
will
get
some
help
on
this.
Very
we!
You
are
my
busy
metric
stress.
Very
I
can
put
some
time.
I
will
try
because
currently,
I'm
focusing
on
the
logs
the
server
side
of
the
log,
so
yeah.
D
D
Because
we
still
have
to
do
more
into
the
longer
work,
but
do
you
think
I
mean,
should
I
check
with
the
ajay
if,
if
roman,
if
I've
done
this,
we
can
have
some
contribution
from
from
your
team
on
this.
E
D
Because
this
is
very
specific,
this
is
more
of
isolated
work,
just
like
we
have
logs
matrix
and
traces,
so
traces
is
something
which
already
it
is
stable,
stable,
matrix
matrix.
We
are
very
much
into
that.
So
right
now
it's
on
very
high
priority,
so
we
are
very
much
focused
into
matrix
and
blocks
specification.
Now
it's
taking
shape.
So
probably
we
need
somebody
who
can
really
take
it
and
drive
it
further,
so
I'll
check
with
ajay.
Probably
you
also
can
have
a
talk
with
him
yeah.
E
D
Yeah
it's
overall
implementation.
Actually
I
mean
we
have
a
longer
implementation,
but
that
was
the
when
we
implemented
that
the
specification
was
not
in
place.
Oh,
our
current
blogger
implementation
is
not
compliant
with
the
specification
and
the
specification
is
not
taking
shape,
so
we
have
more
clarity
on
how
it
looks
like
so
I
think
that
would
be
some
work
in
the
local
space
to
really
do
some
some
to
really
be
compliant.
D
A
D
Okay,
I
think
I'm
just
sharing
it.
This
is
the
specification
discussion
which
we
have
and
I'm
just
looking
where
it
is.
D
E
D
Yes,
it's
hotel
community
demo
application
problem
statement,
so
basically
there
is
a
sample
micro
service
application,
which
is
already
there.
I
think
it
was
owned
by
google
and
google
has
agreed
to
contribute
it
to
open
telemetry
to
use
it,
and
this
this
has
this.
This
basically
contained
multi
lots
of
serving,
I
think,
quite
a
few
services
written
in
multiple
languages
like
go
c-sharp
javascript,
python
java,
so
I
think
most
of
the
languages
of
open
telemetry
are
already
they
have
their
own
services
and
the
as
of
now.
D
I
think
discussions
are
happening
that
will
be
basically
integrating
open,
telemetry
or
doing
instrumentation
for
open
elementary
in
this
demo.
Microservice
application
and
c
plus
plus
is
missing
so
either
we
can.
We
can
modify
this
application.
Add
a
new
service
or
or
use
take
one
of
the
service
and
convert
it
into
simplex
present
start
doing
something
in
that,
or
my
suggestion
was
that,
instead
of
writing
one
of
any
one
of
the
service
from
scratch.
D
The
services
we
already
have
engineering
and
apache
instrumentation.
So
if,
instead
of
adding
a
new
service
for
key
process,
we
can
just
take
another
service
and
add
our
apache
instrumentation,
which
basically
uses
the
open
telemetry.
D
D
E
Let's
see
if,
let's
see
because
this
this
can
be
a
good
exercise
actually
for.
A
D
D
A
D
In
this
I
mean
feel
free,
I
mean
there
are
some
better
ideas
we
can
even
have
mix
of
both
having
an
web
server,
instrumentation
and
also
a
separate
key
cluster,
which
is
something
so
you
think
would
be
a
good
idea.
I
mean
I
just
felt
that
it
would
be
a
bigger,
bigger
work
for
us
being
more
involved
in
matrix
work.
I
think
it
won't
be
much
time
to
really
create
a
new
service
and
that
would
have
been
more
cleaner
and
easy
way
to
support
c
space.
D
C
But
I
don't
know
how
it
can
fit
to
this
with.
C
C
D
D
A
Nothing
for
myself,
there
was
a
topic
we
were
discussing.
You
support
the
dll
building
and
also
provide
api
for
other
languages
to
call
and
yeah.
I
got
to
ask,
but
the
the
guy
who
raised
the
request,
didn't
join
to
this
meeting.
He
he
said.
A
Him
so,
yes,
I
just
want
to
mention.
There
are
some
new
requirements
on
building
the
arrow
and
also
provide
like
wrapper
api
for
other
languages.
D
Okay,
wrapper
api
for
the
language
is
interesting
when
you
say
wrapper
api
for
other
languages.
That
means
that
we
need
to
provide
api
to
serialize
span
or
tracer
provider,
or
what
exactly
it
would
mean.
A
D
A
D
But
yeah
yeah
yeah,
I
think
please
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
if
yeah,
even
if
there
is
some
request
coming
whether
that
would
be
part
of
c
plus
plus
think
or
not.
A
D
Yes,
monday
monday,
I
will
be
on
vacation
monday.
I
won't
be
on
vacation,
but
monday.
The
time
would
be,
I
mean
I'll,
be
staying
in
india,
so
I
think
that
time
will
not
suit
me
so
so
next
week
meeting
I
won't
be
able
to
join
so
I'll,
be
joining
from
from
may
onwards.
I
think
I'll
be.
C
D
I
think
it's
already
there.
The
reason
was
mostly
to
be
abi
compliant,
so
we
wanted
that
we
wanted
that
the
application
should
be.
We
don't
want
a
scenario.
Let
me
think
I
think
it's
because
the
reason
was
ava
compliant.
That
was
one
of
the
reasons
and
the
other
reason
was
the
instrumentation
library
should
not
have
any
bits.
They
should
not
have
any
built-in
formats.
If
they
just
want
to
use
the
api,
they
can
directly
integrate
it
with
the
header
file.
D
Just
use
the
header
files,
and
there
is
no,
they
don't
need
to
do
any
any
build
build
for
the
open
television,
but
the
primary
requirement
was
actually
to
be
to
be
api
compliant.
We
don't
want
that
is
to
provide
a
library,
and,
I
think
like.
Let
me
see,
I
think
it's
a
good
good
question.
Good
call.
Let
let
me
just
just
try
to
think
it
try
to
try
to
look
more
in
more
detail,
more
discussions
on
that
that
discussion
happened
even
before
I
joined
this
team.