►
From YouTube: 2021-02-24 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
Well,
I'm
not
sure
I'm
going
to
stay
up
that
late
tonight
and
I
don't
know,
is
that
do
people
usually
show
up
here.
B
A
I've
been
I've
been
playing
around
with
spring
cloud,
sleuth
hotel,
trying
to
actually
put
together
a
sample
app
to
verify
that
it
works.
I've
already
found
two
bugs
one
super
easy
to
fix.
One
I
don't
know:
what's
gonna
happen
to
fix
it,
but
that's
all
right.
B
A
B
A
Oh,
does
it
yeah?
Well
then,
I
needed
some
time
that
I
shouldn't
have.
A
B
A
A
Yeah,
if
it's
duplicated,
it's
fine,
I'm
happy
to
know
that
I
had
forgotten
what
all
you
had
covered.
I
had
forgotten
you
covered
it
all
to
be
honest.
B
A
Okay,
I
mean
we
need
to
make
a
choice.
You
know
I
just
wrote
down
a
choice.
A
B
B
C
A
A
Yeah
so
riley
had
a.
He
has
a
blog
post
about
his
rough
schedule
of
what
he
thinks.
Metrics
is
gonna,
be
oh,
but
I
I
I
mean
I
don't
know.
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
He
went
through
this
talk.
He
also
went
through
the
stock
on
the
maintainers
meeting,
so
I
didn't
pay.
A
To
it
today,
but
yeah,
these
are
things
that
I
think
he
has
experienced,
both
as
a
part
of
open
tracing
and
part
of
working
with
customers
using
open,
telemetry
things.
That
would
be
good.
A
I
have
been
trying
to
reiterate
that
telemetry's
stability
guarantees,
at
least
defining
them,
have
to
be
done
as
soon
as
we
possibly
can.
Otherwise,
we
can't
release
any
instrumentation
at.
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Then
jonathan
ivanov
was
like:
when
are
you
releasing
java
like?
What
are
you
asking
in
this
meeting.
B
B
A
B
B
Well,
that's
true:
yeah
he's
my
boss
right
now,
yeah
and
so
that
other
meeting
is
also
for
trust
to
talk
to
nikita
so
yeah
yeah
yeah.
A
I
don't
know
if
you
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
hijack
this
meeting,
but
it
feels
like
it's
hijacked
itself.
Do
you
do
you
and
I
have
anything
we
need
to
talk
about
at
this
point.
A
Think
about,
but
we
so
I
think
his
main
point
at
this
right
now
is
that
we
need
to
update
the
javadoc
on
the
on
the
propagators,
because
it
has
some
very
weird
wishy-washy
language
that
doesn't
match
what
we
do
or
what's
in
the
spec
language.
So
I
think
that
would,
if
we
just
at
least
javadoc
clean
that
javadoc
up
to
say
what
the
expectations
should
be.
I
think
he'll
be
fine
with
that.
There's
an
issue
open
for
it
that
he
created.
A
And
that
is
basically
I
mean
we're,
not
we're
not
breaking
anything
around
api
or
abi
compatibility.
We
just
have
a
dependency
that
isn't
stable,
which
would
be
true
if
we
had
any
dependency
that
wasn't
stable,
whether
it
was
ours
or.
B
A
A
So
I
think
he
was
fine
with
it.
As
long
I
mean
we
did
have
a
bunch
of
things
that
were
labeled
api
dependencies
in
gradle.
What
difference
that
actually
makes?
I
can't
actually
don't
know,
I
don't
think
it
actually
makes
any
practical
difference.
It
comes
down
as
a
dependency,
but
we
should
at
least
write
it,
as
does.
B
A
That's
not
true,
it
should
be
true.
That's
not
true
at
all.
You
can
definitely
they're
they're
in
there
in
your
class
path
and
so.
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
was
surprised
I
was
like
this-
is
actually
a
nice
mechanism
like
if,
thanks
to
that,
I'm
more
comfortable,
I
wouldn't
like
these
alpha
things
getting
to
the
users
class
path
automatically
and
I'm
hoping
for
most
users.
It
doesn't,
which
is
what
I
think
is
true,
because
the
runtime
dependencies
well
yeah,
I
mean.