►
From YouTube: 2020-11-19 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
B
B
B
D
C
Hey
all
right:
hey,
we
got
a
got
a
lot
of
people
today,
sup
everybody
looks
like
it's
1203.
So,
let's
get
started.
If
you
guys
can
you
know,
put
your
name
down
on
the
attendees
list.
We're
taking
roll
calls
right
now.
C
Also
diego,
how
come
your
name
is
always
like
formatted
differently,
it's
actually
hilarious.
What
do
you
mean
differently
like
on
the
sign
in
list
the
attendees
list?
It's
always
like.
It's
like
you
copy
and
paste
it
or
something
from
somewhere.
Really
yeah.
Am
I
the
only
one?
That's.
E
C
F
A
C
C
Oh
sorry,
I
just
didn't
yeah
my
bad.
All
right
colton
is
tripping
yeah.
I
am
tripping
in
your
own
words:
yeah
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
let's
just
get
started,
then
dan
someone
moved
thanksgiving
to
the
front,
so
I
guess
I
think
we're
planning
to.
Since
a
lot
of
us
folks
are
from
the
states.
You
know
have
a
thanksgiving
next
week,
so
we're
planning
to
probably
cancel
next
week's
meeting.
C
So
don't
don't
join
guys,
no
one's
going
to
be
there.
So
that's
pretty
much.
It
yeah
all
right!
Anything!
That's
next!
Okay!
So
in
terms
of
the
contrib
stuff
that
whole
workflow,
I'm
pretty
sure
everything
is
like
on
track.
I
can
refer
to
nathaniel
to
talk
more
about
that,
but
I
think
you
know
we're
all
like
confidently
already
merging
stuff
in
to
contrib
and
everything
now.
So
I
think
everything
is
good
anything
any
words
about
that
like
regarding
that
no.
E
I
appreciate
everyone's
help,
especially
reviewing
the
last
few
pr's
getting
all
the
testing
stuff
set
up,
and
at
least
right
now
we
have
a
good
example
with,
as
far
as
pr
to
fix
contrib
it's
a
good
example.
We
can
talk
about
it
today
on
how
you
would
create
a
change
that
crosses
both
repos
awesome,
cool.
C
Oh,
my
I'm
actually
not
sharing
my
screen.
Let
me
do
that
real
quick.
Do
we
want
to
just
do
that
right
now,
real,
quick,
just.
E
Can
I
see
my
screen
yeah
see
so
I'll
go
to
as
far
as
pr
I
don't
know,
did
it
get
sweet,
so
it
just
needs
one
more
approval
from
someone
to
check
it,
but,
as
you
can
see
in
this
pr,
he
it
was
a
really
simple
change
on
the
core
repo.
All
he
had
to
do
was
basically
change
the
api
to
meet
the
specs
and
it
got
a
lot
of
rules
and
it
got
merged.
E
So
if
I
were
to
go
to
the
core
repo
right
now
and
look
at
the
history
on
the
master
branch,
you
can
see
that
he,
this
is
where
his
change
got
merged
in,
but
the
contrib
tests
were
still
passing
because
it
was
merging.
It
was
pointing
to
a
commit
before
his
changes,
but
if
it
were
to
point
to
his
change,
it
would
break,
but
now
he
needed
his
changes
to
the
actual
calls
to
the
api
to
be
able
to
pass
the
test
with
the
most
recent
commit.
So
that's
what
he
did.
E
E
So
that's
the
only
thing
that
you
have
to
do
now.
If
you
have
a
change
on
contrib
on
court
that
breaks
contrib,
you
come
here
to
contribute,
make
the
change
and
you'd
point
it
to
as
recent
as
a
commit
as
possible.
It
should
be
the
most
recent
one
that
you
can
see
because
otherwise
something's
wrong,
but
if
you
can
do
that,
then
all
the
tests
would
pass
so
to
guard
against
something
like
this.
That's
why
we
have
right
now
this
pr
in
core
to
add
these
tests
to
the
core
repo
prs.
E
So
what
this
will
do
is
literally
copy
and
paste
the
tests
that
are
being
run
on
contrib
and
put
it
into
the
core
repo,
so
that
when,
if
ashby
were
to
make
this
pr
today
or
if
anyone
in
the
future
makes
it,
it
will
just
run
all
the
tests,
contribute
and
tell
you.
The
state
of
excuse
me
like
whether
your
pr
would
break
contribute
or
not,
if
you're
good,
and
you
don't
need
to
make
any
changes
to
pr
all
these
tests
will
pass
and
we
can
merge
it.
E
E
So,
as
you
can
see,
that's
the
difference
between
the
regular
build
test
which
are
required
versus
a
contrib
build
which
is
not
required,
so
this
pr
is
broken
right
now,
because
we
need
to
get
the
as
far
as
change
in
contrib
as
soon
as
that
happens,
all
you'd
have
to
do
is
just
rerun
this
test
and
it
would
work
as
you
can
see
right
now.
It
points
to
master,
but
pastor
master
doesn't
have
his
changes
yet,
but
the
second
it
does.
This
pr
will
be
able
to
pass
the
rest
of
this.
E
E
E
It
would
be
in
this
file
here
under
how
to
get
these
merging
if
you
make
the
contrib
test
pass
as
well,
but
just
briefly
I'll
mention
it
to
you
that
of
all
these
steps.
This
is
the
only
step
that
it's
just
a
sanity
check.
It's
not
something
that
you
have
to
do
to
get
it
merged
in
or
you
might
want
to
do
for
the
maintainer's
sake,
so
they
understand
what's
going
on,
but
this
will
point
to
master,
but
if
you
are
making
a
change
that
affects
both
contrib
and
core
you'd
put
up
both
those
pr's.
E
At
that
moment,
your
core
test
will
still
fail,
because
by
default
this
points
to
master
on
those
situations.
You
would
change
that
sha
to
point
to
your
pr
income
trip
once
it
does.
This
pr
will
go
green
and
so
will
the
other
one
the
workflow
is.
We
would
merge
the
contrib
pr
first,
because
that's
the
only
one,
that's
pointing
to
a
committed
every
time
once
that
one
gets
merged,
then
you
could
either
you
could
rerun
this
one
and
prove
that
again
for
the
second
time
tests
pass
and
then
they
can
merge
it
confidently.
E
E
C
So
I
know
we
talked
about
this
yesterday
nathaniel,
but
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
to
everyone
here
so
the
the
workflow
my
opinion,
there's
always
that
interim
state
of
like
danger
of
riskiness,
of
like
potential
blocking
other
prs,
where
one
pr
is
merged,
whether
it
be
on
core
or
repo
and
the
other
one
isn't
right.
That's
technically
a
breaking
state
right
from
from
nathaniel's
like
what
he
was
talking
before.
C
He
wants
people
to
merge
the
contrib
pr
first
and
then
the
core
repo,
my
understanding,
would
have
was
to
merge
the
core
one
first
actually
and
then
finish
up
with
the
contrib
repo
and
a
number
of
reasons
for
this
core.
Like
I
in
terms
of
like
importantness,
I
guess
or
like
blocking
things
like.
C
I
don't
mind
if,
like
honestly
like
in
the
contribute,
it's
like
slower
velocity
right
for
the
core
stuff,
we
really
don't
want
to
block
anyone,
and
we
want
to
have
prs
constantly
being
merged
in
so
core
should
always
be
in
like
a
complete
building
state
with
all
of
the
latest
changes
just
like
in
the
example
for
as
far
as,
what's
it
called
prs
right
like
his
his
his
metrics
changes
got
merged
in
and
it's
totally
fine.
C
Now
like,
then
everyone
can
like
work
on
his
changes
and
no
one
is
blocked
for
core.
It's
only
the
contrib
repo
that
was
like
left
in,
like
this
interim
state,
but
like
if
you
did
this
in
reverse,
then
like
people
who
were
waiting
on
that
accumulator
change,
like
you
know,
cannot,
cannot
do
anything
right.
C
So
I
guess
that's
like
my
kind
of
reasoning,
I'm
a
bit
open
to
like
discussion
for
this,
but
like
it's
kind
of
not
such
a
huge
deal,
but
you
know,
as
as
for
like
the
experience
or
like
the
the
workflow,
I
feel
like
it's.
It
makes
more
sense.
So
what
do
you
guys
think.
D
I
agree
I
think
core
first
makes
sense
to
me
as
well
yeah.
I
think
you
articulated
the
points
quite
well.
B
Yeah,
definitely
it's
also,
I
think,
important,
to
also
make
sure
that
tax
runs
locally.
Also
well,
because
right
yeah,
I
had
some
issues
with
this.
Try
to
fix
it,
I
guess
the
the
environment
that
is
using
ci
is
not
exactly
equivalent
to
the
one
that
somebody
has.
Therefore,
you
know
local
computer
right.
E
I
guess,
like
I
I'll
reiterate
the
points
I
mentioned
too
yesterday
so
like
we
mentioned,
the
tests
for
contrib
are
not
blocking
on
core.
So
as
far
as
anyone
making
a
pr
in
core
will
be
able
to
move
along
freely,
they'll
be
able
to
merge,
prs
and
make
changes
and
everything
the
only
thing
that
the
test
will
then
serve
as
the
purpose
of
is
like
hey
by
the
way
like
right
now,
core
is
fine,
you
can
build
and
use
core.
E
E
Because
excuse
me,
when
you
have
a
merge
on
contrib
and
contribute
points
to
a
commit
on
core,
then
a
subsequent
pr
needs
to
have
the
change
of
contrib
to
be
able
to
go
forward.
So
there
is
a
blocking
thing
there.
I'm
I'm
worried.
I
haven't
thought
it
through
completely,
but
I
think
if
we
switch
it,
then
that
blocking
behavior
would
shift
to
core
and
that's
what
we
don't
want
right.
C
Well,
if
we
just
take
it
as
far
as
prf,
for
example,
right
like
changes
that
rely
on
as
far
as
pr
would
cannot,
cannot
go
in
like
as
fast
right
if
we
have
to
merge
contrib
first
like
because
right
now
like
like,
if,
if
someone
were
to
work
on
the
core
rupo
like
we,
don't
care
about
contrib
right,
like
only
the
maintainers
and
like
the
people
using
the
instrumentations
care
about
that,
but
mostly
the
maintainers
right,
like
we
just
want
to
maintain
a
non-breaking
state,
but
for
like
people
who
are
just
want
to
contribute
to
core
like
like.
E
C
C
E
C
No,
but
like
the
ordering
that
you
said
you
got
a
merge,
contrib
first
and
then
you
merged
your
your
core,
and
this
is
like
you
got
to
be
thinking
like
from
from
the
perspective
of
like
a
random
user
right,
like
not
one
of
us
experienced
people
who
will
probably
merge
both
immediately
right
from
like
a
random
user,
like
the
turnaround
for
even
one
pr
could
be
a
week
right.
I.
C
Imagine
what
it's
like
for
a
random
person
to
have
to
figure
out
this
whole
workflow
merge
one
of
the
pr's
and
contrib
and
then
like
what,
if
they
you
know
like,
we
there's
no
guarantee,
there's
no
sla
on
like
their
turnaround
time
for
coors
pr
right
so
like
I
much
rather
for
them
to
get
core
green.
So
that,
like
you,
know
the
important
changes,
the
things
that
are
actually
breaking
others
go
in
rather
than
the
things
that
will
fix
in
the
contrib
repo
and
then
like.
Potentially,
they
might
not
even
come
back
right.
E
So
the
only
thing
that
we
could
change
here-
I
I
get
it
now,
you're
saying
like
say
this
is
on
master
right.
Let's
say
we
change
this
to
be
an
actual
commit
either
either
way
it's
it's
going
to
break
the
tests
right
either
you're
pointing
to
an
old
commit
or
you're
pointing
to
master.
If
you
have
a
change,
a
breaking
change
in
core-
and
we
merge
this
pr,
which
is
to
add
the
contrib
tests,
the
contrib
tests
are
always
going
to
break
no
matter.
F
E
Yep
so
like
I
like,
I
get
like
you,
you
could
merge
contrib
first
before
core,
but
like
you
they're,
they're
kind
of
like
one
in
the
same
right
in
two
weeks
ago.
They
were
the
exact
same
pr
always,
and
that's
still
the
case
like
one
week
from
now.
It's
just
you
have
to
merge
them
both
at
the
same
time
whether
you
merge
core
first
and
then
contrib.
C
E
C
Anyways
yeah-
I
don't
want
to
spend
too
much
more
time
on
this,
but
yeah
good
job
for
this.
So
let's,
let's
just
try
to
get
the
this
pr,
or
at
least
sorry
as
far
as
pr
is
in
so
you
can
pass
this
one
yep.
G
C
Nice,
I
can
take
the
screen
again.
Yes,
all
right!
Okay,
talking
about
the
next
release
alex,
you
want
to
talk
about
this
bit.
Yeah.
F
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
ask
people
if
there
was
there
was
I
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
if
people
wanted
to
get
a
release
before
rc
one
or
if
there
was
anything
that
people
were
waiting
on
that
they
needed
shipped
like
this
week.
I
know
nathaniel
you'd,
put
a
question
and
get
her
around
whether
or
not
we
were
planning
on
doing
a
release,
and
I
I
am
happy
to
do
that.
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
there
was
like
any
urgency
or
or
whatever.
E
I,
like
I
mentioned
and
get
it
I'd,
appreciate
a
release
right
now,
just
to
be
able
to
we're
we're
thinking
of
shipping
something
soon,
and
so
we
wanted
to
test
something
that
we
can
download
from
pi
pi,
but
like
and
that's
why
I
like
I'm
totally
available
this
week
to
help
you,
especially
with
the
contribs
I've
released
it.
I
guess,
if
there's
anything
that
I'd
want
to
see
in
it'd
be
oasis
pr
for
the
automatic,
auto
instrumentation
pr
right.
E
C
Yeah,
I
think,
what's
it
called,
I
think
the
debate
was
because
we're
still
missing
two
prs
to
go
in
for
rc
one
and
that
are
open
right
now
that
are
close
to
being
merged
and
also
always
pr
needs
one
more
reviewer
as
well.
So
realistically,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
get
it
in
this
week,
but
if
there
is
an
urgency
for
it
like
like,
we
would
have
to
try
to
push
it
for
next
week.
C
That's
only
if
we
want
to
get
all
those
changes
in,
but
if
that
doesn't
really
matter
then
like,
and
if
you
really
need
the
release
to
do
something,
then
we
could
try
to
get
in
this
week.
But
if,
like
you
know
this
week
and
next
week,
it
doesn't
really
matter
to
you,
then
I
would
suggest
us
wait
till
next
week.
F
Is
the
is
the
only
change
that
you're
waiting
for
in
both
contrib
and
and
the
core
repo,
the
the
change
that
oe
has
opened,
nathaniel
or.
E
A
E
It
it's
it's
a
good
change
and
he
simplified
it
a
lot,
and
so
we
don't
have
to
get
it
in
either
way,
but
I
think
it'd
be
a
good
idea
to
get
it
in
you
know.
Maybe
some
people
will
download
it
and
test
it
out
and
give
feedback
on
whether
they
like
it
or
not.
Okay,.
C
So
then
we
can
just
like
all
right
alex.
How
will
we
just
like
release
this
week
and
then
not
be
the
rc1
release
and
then
we'll
just
do
the
rsa1
release
like
two
weeks
from
now
or
three
weeks
from
now,
because
we
still
have
to
get
that
span.
Id
thing
changed
too,
like
the
the
recently
added
feature
for
the
feature
matrix
so
oh
shoot,
I
think
that'd
be
okay,
yeah.
C
All
right
sounds
good
cool
all
right.
Next,
the
docs
github
action
just
oh.
F
Yeah
I
want
to
bring
up
the
docs
github
action
because
I
I
wanted
to
talk
about
it
briefly.
I
so
I
noticed
this,
like
I
don't
know
a
few
weeks
ago,
when
I,
when
this
was
first
broken,
and
then
I
I
revisited
when
I
saw
that
it
was
still
broken
like
this
week.
I
don't
know
why
we
have
this
action.
It's
currently.
F
Here
let
me
I
can
probably
just
figure
out
where
it
is.
I
found
it
in
the
settings
if
you
scroll
down
in
here,
there's
like
get
up
pages
right
there
right,
like
I'm,
not
even
sure.
If
anybody
else
knows
this
existed
so.
C
So
I
guess,
if
you
kind
of
history,
it's
like
we
initially
were
using
this
for
our
docs
and
then
we
started
using
rita
docks.
But
I
don't
know
if
this
is
left
because
someone
needed
it
or
if
it's,
because
we
just
forgot
to
clean
it
up.
So
if
no
one
in
the
chat
right
now
has
like
actively
been
using
this
or
like,
has
a
reason
or
like
why
this
should
be
here.
I
think
the
plan
is
for
us
to.
C
C
C
Yeah
here,
okay.
C
F
C
Okay,
cool
shove,
nick
you
got,
you
got
a
little
entry
here.
You
want
to
talk
about
that.
H
But
when
I
actually
changed
that
and
then
I
I
pushed
it's
still
getting
winter,
so
I'm
just
confused
how
that's
actually
run
like
if
anyone
knows
quickly
off
the
top.
Otherwise
I
guess
I'll
just
look
into
it.
C
This
is
what
you
were
talking
about
for
the
proto
buff
stuff
right.
H
Still
getting
linted
up
interesting
does
that
have
to
be
like?
Does
this
actually
get
merged
where
to
stop
getting
linted
or
something.
C
Yeah,
it's
yeah,
I'm
not
really
too
familiar
with,
like
the
ignores
and
like
how
to
work
with
those
things.
But
if
anyone
else
knows
how
to
ignore
certain
paths,
for
is
it
all
kinds
of
linting
like
like?
Not
you
don't
want
any
of
them
to
be
checked.
E
Yeah,
I
would
say
this:
this
script.
I've
like
had
a
lot
of
wrestling
with
it
over
the
last
few
weeks.
There's
a
lot
of
like
fancy
stuff
for
lindt.
We
run
like
four
different
lints.
We
run
like
black
and
flake
and
piling,
and
yes
so
I
would
definitely
recommend
like
just
sitting
down
and
reading
through
this
one
and
there's
someone
rob
knox.
I
don't
know
if
he's
on
the
call,
but
he
had
to
generate
exclude
some
generated
stuff,
so
I'll
ping
you
with
his
alias
on
gitter.
E
C
Yeah,
okay,
cool
thanks
for
that.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
other
topics
that
they
want
to
talk
about
before
we
go
into
prs.
C
All
right
cool
alex-
and
I
have
already
gone
through
this
one.
We
don't
really
have
to
talk
about
this
one,
but.
C
Right,
it
looks
like
diego
has
some
requests
for
changes
for
this,
and
it's
also
blocking
on
yusuke's
comments.
C
Diego
do
you
know
if
rashmi
has
addressed
your
comments?
Actually
it
looks
like
she
hasn't
or
he
hasn't.
I
don't
really
know
worked
on
this
recently,
so
yeah
we
could
talk
about
this,
maybe
give
it
up.
C
All
right,
this
is
always
infamous
vpi
yeah,
this
vr
yeah
yeah.
I
think
we
assigned
diego
and
alex
do
it,
but
we
have
this
policy
of
like
you
can't
be
from
the
same
company
like
approve
it.
So
if
anybody
else
wants
to
pick
this
up,
this
pr
is
kind
of
like
more
than
almost
two
months
old,
so
it'd
be
great.
If
we
couldn't
get
someone
to
look
at
this,
thank
you.
C
D
C
I
think
we
have
a.
We
have
a
guideline
for
the
approvers
thing
we'll
have
to
revisit
it.
F
F
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
also
happy
to
take
a
look
at
this.
I
know
we
have
the
policy
of
not
having
like
two
people
in
the
same
work
approving
it,
but
since
this
was
written
by
someone
else,
I
think
I'm
I'm
okay
with
skipping,
not
okay.
Everybody
else
feels
comfortable
with
it.
Yeah
sounds
good
cool.
C
Cool
nice
all
right
up-
next,
oh
damn
alex
and
aaron
holy
right.
So
this
is
like
for,
like
the
zipkin
explorer
stuff
that
was
required
for
rc
one.
It
is
kind
of
on
like
the
lower
sorry,
not
rc1.
We
don't
actually
know
what
this
is
when
this
is
needed,
but
it's
in
the
feature
matrix,
so
it's
required
for
ga,
so
yeah,
we
kind
of
just
you
know,
need
unique
eyes
on
this.
C
Sure,
yeah
yeah
you
go,
let
me
assign
you.
C
C
C
Oh
cool
same
thing
here,
but
yeah
yo
away
you're
so
sneaky
so
sneaky
with
it
man,
nice,
okay,
so
we
got
this.
The
the
test
just
needs
to
be
fixed.
So
this
this
rob
guy
he's
been
pretty
on
point
with
the
changes
lately.
So
I
think
I'm
not
gonna
paint
him
just
yet
so.
A
C
It's
good,
oh
nathaniel's,
pr.
C
Oh,
it's
just
yeah,
so
I
guess
what
was
the
thing
that
you're
blocked
on?
Is
it
actually.
C
E
E
A
C
E
C
Okay,
oh
nice,
cool
yeah,
diego
thanks
for
adding
this
looks
like
it's
just
some
changes
requested
from
alex.
C
Oh,
it
looks
like
your
response.
I
guess
yeah.
This
is
just
on
me
to
follow
everyone
awesome
thanks
and
lastly,
oh
yeah.
This
is
something
that
I
put
up.
This
is
part
of
the
it's
like
super
simple,
so,
like
my
exception,
recording
convergence
pr
was
merged
like
a
week
ago.
I
just
forgot
to
add
the
is
recording
for
this,
so
yeah.
If
someone
can
just
like
approve
this
that'd
be
great.
C
It's
then
it'll
just
it'll
just
finally
close
this
issue,
so
yep,
oh
and
it
should
be
merged
after
this
contributor
one,
because
I'm
removing
this
otel
status
code
that
we're
only
using
for
the
request
instrumentation,
which
is
it
feels
wrong
like
we're,
not
utilizing
this
field
at
all,
and
I'm
deleting
that
in
here
so
yeah.
If
someone
can
take
a
look
at
that,
that'd
be
great.
E
E
C
Right
I
saw
that
I
think
I
already
approved
that
oh,
is
it
this.
E
C
F
Nice,
okay,
hey
edward,
they
have
a
question
about
that
pr,
this
one,
no,
the
the
one
that
we
were
just
talking
about.
Can
you
bring
up,
bring
it
up?
It's.
F
E
No,
we
don't
use
it.
I
put
it
in
the
description
of
the
pr
that
there
is
no
read
the
docs
build
right
now,
but,
like
these
are
they're,
both
broken
links,
anyways
right,
the
other
one
was
there's
nothing
there
and
this
one
doesn't
point
to
anything
right
now,
but
when
we
build
it,
this
is
where
it
would
be
right.
So
this
is
just
kind
of
like,
like
a
precursor
to
that.
E
C
To
add
the
read
the
docs
build
and
the
doc.yaml
file
all
right
cool.
Can
you
make
a
issue
for
that?
Actually,
so
don't
forget
I'll.
E
C
C
There's
like
a
few
open
that
I
think
people
are
like
having
a
discussion
over
yep
sounds
good
all
right.
We
can
talk
about
these
issues,
then
oh
right,
yeah.
We
linked
this
because
I
I
needed
to
assign
myself
this
thing
so.
F
Your
friend,
oh
I
just
yeah,
no,
I
I
don't
know
how
this
happened.
It
was
like.
I
opened
the
issue
and
one
minute
later,
this
comment
showed
up
with
no
and
then
the
like.
The
sad
face
showed
up
on
the
oh,
my
god
yo
I
wasn't
yeah,
I
I
don't
know
I
would
I'll
probably
follow
up
or
maybe
do
you
want
to
follow
up
and.
F
E
C
C
D
D
That's
quite
popular,
so
is
it's
hector
here.
Maybe
I
can
get
some
ideas
from
him,
so
it
looks
like
I
haven't,
looked
into
it
in
detail,
but
looks
like
this
will
require
a
major
rework
of
the
instrumentation
right
and-
and
I'm
at
this
point
I'm
thinking
it
might
be
easier
to
just
take
open
tracing,
psycho,
pg,
instrumentation
and
just
replace
this
with
open
tracing
one,
because
that
I
know
that
works
and
doesn't
have
this
issue.
D
C
D
C
C
Sounds
good
all
right!
Thank
you,
nice
all
right
cool.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
other
stuff.
They
want
to
talk
about
some
some
problems
or
stuff,
they're
blocked
on.
C
E
G
B
C
E
Sorry,
nathaniel,
you
were
saying
I
just
had
a
good
question.
One
of
the
tasks
I
have
to
do
next
is:
I
have
to
evaluate
the
instrumentation
we
have
for
db
and
sql
packages
on
python,
and
I
guess
we
were
just
talking
about
one
of
them
with
postgres
and
just
wondering
like
what
you
guys
think
is
a
state
of
instrumentation
of
popular
python
packages
like
I
saw
the
sql
sql
alchemy.
One
has
some
basic
instrumentation,
but
I
don't
know
what
you
guys
have
seen
if
it's
good
right
now.
E
What
do
you
mean
by
the
state
like,
I
guess,
I'm
fairly
new
to
python,
2
and
just
wondering
like
is-
are
the
popular
packages
instrumented
and
are
they
like
up
to
specs
for
what
attributes
need
to
be
traced
and
have
propagators,
initialize
and
stuff
yeah.
F
C
Is
an
issue
right
now?
I
I
put
down
a
bunch
of
issues
to
like
make
our
instrumentations.
You
know,
semantically,
follow
the
semantic
conventions
for
the
for
the
for
the
specs,
and
am
I
in
the
right,
nope
and
like
yeah,
like
that's.
C
That's
what
we're
using
to
track
that
so
in
terms
of
the
popular
libraries
like
this
is
what
people
have
been
contributing
so
far,
so
people
are
definitely
like
interested
in
using
it,
but
in
terms
of
like
they've,
just
like
dropped
in
and
added
added
the
instrumentation,
so
they
don't
not.
All
of
them
necessarily
follow
the
specs
right
now,
which
is
why
we
have
the
you
know,
like
you
know,
like
these
specific
you
know,
fix
the
instrumentations
to
match
the
semantic.
C
E
Okay,
yeah,
I'm
just
I'm
going
to
go
through
and
look
specifically
at
the
sql
stuff
and
I
might
put
prs
to
yeah.
C
That's
what
I
had,
I
think
someone
was
working
on
the
db
ones.
A
C
A
A
I
think
like
using
pg
one
is
in
like
it's
in
still
review
stage
awesome
so.
G
A
Started
like
I
started,
working
on
dba
paypal
and
its.
C
Thanks
a
lot
man,
you're
not
blocked
on
that
or
anything
right
like.
C
B
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
say
the
good
job
to
all
the
maintainers,
because
I
have
seen
in
the
last
few
months
a
lot
of
new
contributions
from
new
people.
So.
A
B
The
the
this
project
is
seeing
like
a
project
group
you're
welcome
to
contribute
so
bringing
other
people
in
it's
always
great,
so
yeah.
A
B
When
months
ago,
when
we
were
just.
C
Always
the
same
people
bro.
I
remember
that,
like
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
remember
but
like
our
calls
were
down
to
like
four
people
at
one
point
it
was
like
me,
aaron,
diego
and
and
alex
and
they're
like
all
right
guys
who
wants
to
take
this
on
like
dead
silence
and
then
I'm
just
like
all
right
on
to
the
next
task,
so
yeah
that
was
pretty
much
it
so,
okay
cool.