►
From YouTube: 2022-05-09 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
C
D
C
C
Do
we
think
that
we
are
getting
sufficient
requests
for
this?
As
of
now,
we
just
wanted
to
get
together
feedback
on
this,
with
something
whether
we
should
start
planning
now
or
something
which
can
wait,
or
what
do
you
think
on
the
current
scenario.
A
I
got
a
request
yeah,
but
another
urgent
or
immediate,
but
I
think
we,
if
we
can
do
some
piling
on
that,
that
would
be
great
for
the
dal
support.
I
think
build
our
like
really
so
dear
or
allow
our
report
to
be
built
as
a
deal.
Maybe
may
not
be
the
blocker.
C
C
The
open,
telemetry
library
as
a
dll,
but
we
are
talking
about
using
using
our
sdk,
integrate
our
sdk
with
the
dlls
and
it
can
be
in,
and
the
tracer
providers
and
the
dll
should
be
able
to
use
the
tracer
providers
which
are
being
created
from
the
application,
and
they
should
be
able
to
send
the
spans
and
for
that
to
work,
we
need
to
define
the
export
and
import
declarations
for
all
the
exported
apis
in
the
classes.
So
we
need.
C
He
did
some
code
changes.
Nothing,
probably
he
is
open
for
contributing
those
code.
Changes
in
in
our
repo.
The
consequences
of
those
changes
would
be
that
so
this
requires,
as
I
understand
it,
this
requires
some
of
the
header,
some
of
the
implementation,
which
is
in
the
header
files
that
the
all
those
all
those
objects,
all
those
definition
which
should
be
shared
between
the
dlls
across
the
dll
that
should
go
in
a
source
file.
C
So
all
those
definitions
has
to
move
in
the
source
file,
which
will
mean
that
we
don't
have
the
header
on
the
api
anymore,
so
the
solution
could
be
either.
We
have
the
duplicate
code,
maintain
the
same
code
in
the
header
file
also,
and
the
same
code
in
the
source
files
probably
have
a
macro
flag.
If
somebody
want
to
use
to
use
it
in
the
dll
this,
those
source
files
should
be
enabled
otherwise
by
default
it
should
be
the
header
only
which
something
which
should
be
used.
A
A
E
C
E
C
Until
we
are
okay
with
having
a
duplicate
code
exist
in
both
dot,
cpp
and
dot,
I
mean
same
code
existing
in
the
header
file
and
also
the
source
file
we
are,
we
should
I
mean
if
we
are
okay
with
that,
then
we
we
can
stay
with
the
header
only
requirement.
C
C
C
No,
no,
I
mean
this
is
doable,
but
I
don't
think
it's
a
nice
approach
to
do
it.
So
that's
what
I
was
saying.
If
we
want
to
support
dll,
we
should
have
maintain
a
duplicate
code.
So
I
we
should
have
a
span.h
which
contains
this
code
and
we
should
also
have
a
span
dot
ccc,
which
contains
the
same
code.
So
that's
what
I
was
saying
that
if
we
have
to
support
we
should
have,
we
should
be
agreed
to
have
a
duplicate
code
in
both
header,
same
code
in
both
header
and
cc
cc
file.
A
I
think
it's
just
not
a
good
idea
for
the
duplicate
code,
or
could
we
remove
like
remove
that
duplication
by
include
the
cc
in
header
file?
So
we
can.
A
C
C
A
C
Yeah
so
either
we
should
remove
the
header
only
constraint,
or
we
should
support,
duplicates,
removing
the
error
on
the
constraint.
I
see
that
we
will
be
breaking
change
for
sure,
at
least
for
etw
provide
etw
exported,
which
is
all
added
only
which
claims
which
is
being
marketed
by
us
as
a
header
on
the
exporter.
C
C
C
C
I
I
wanted,
if
somehow,
if
you
can
convince
this
this
guy,
to
join
the
meeting,
probably
to
have
a
more
wider
discussion,
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea.
Let's,
let's
thank
him,
somehow
he's
not
joining
the
meetings,
I
mean
because
he
has
some
constraints,
but
I
think,
let's
think
if
he
can
join
the
meeting
and
let's
discuss
with
him
the
approach
which
he
feels
would
be
good.
C
C
C
C
I
wanted
to
talk
about
matrix
alpha
release.
I
mean
I
just
wanted
to
understand,
get
more
feedback,
I
mean.
Where
do
you
think
so
it's.
C
Okay,
just
wanted
to
check
your
your
feedback,
I
mean:
do
you
think
we
are
ready
for
a
alpha
release,
so
it
is
something
that
we
have
an
end-to-end
pipeline
existing
as
of
now
there
may
be
the
features
which
would
be
missing.
There
may
be
performance
issues
there
may
be.
We
may
not
be
completely
specs
compliant,
but
it's
one
step
forward
to
a
beta
release.
C
It
just
says
that
we
are,
they
have
been
developed
and
done
and
that's
enough
development
for
for
an
end-to-end
example,
somebody
want
to
run
that
and
that's
something
which
is
available
and
that
can
be
tested,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
check
with
assad
also
because
he
has
worked
on
primitives
and
some
other
streams
exporters.
B
C
C
C
So
next
we
have
an
information.
We
have
to
go
through
the
specs
compliance
matrix
and
create
the
initials
for
each
of
the
items
in
that
in
the
mat
in
the
compliance
matrix
which
we're
not
aligning
to,
and
then
probably
I
think
we
should
start
working.
C
Some
complaints
on
the
noise-
and
I
think
it
was-
let
me
see-
probably
I
think
in
the
next
meeting,
if
I
have
to
do
some
change,
but
I
don't
know
because
I
don't
see
any
noise,
at
least
in
my
environment,
what
kind
of
noise
it
is.
Is
it
some
humming
thing
or
it's
something
something
coming
in
between
or
some
continuous
noise.
C
Yeah
yeah,
it's
me
only.
I
don't
know
how
to
fix
it
up,
but
I
think
let
me
let
me
see.
Let
me
try
to
very
next
meeting.
I
think.
Let
me
try
it's
gone.
Yes,
yes
seems.
C
Yeah,
I
think,
let's
do
that.
Let's
have
one
release,
probably
next
year
anyway,
we
are
having
one
month
from
the
last,
so
we
are
in
a
good
timeline
also
for
the
next
series.
So
I
think
probably
we
can
plan
for
alpha
release.
I
think
next
week
we
will
take
care
of
the.
C
Yeah,
I
think
it
should.
It
should
be
good.
I
mean
we're
good
to
even
do
it
this
week.
Also,
so
probably
I
think
from
that
formatting
side.
I
think
we
are
going
to
do
this
week.
Also,
I'm
just
thinking
if
we
should
include
the
longer
changes
which
has
done.
I
think
that
would
be
about
inclusion
if
that
can
be.
A
B
B
C
C
Let's
go
for
next
week
and
which
is
fine,
I
think,
even
if
we
target
for
16th,
because
I
mean,
if
I
just
quickly
go
to
the
milestones.
C
C
C
The
only
thing
is
that
the
vlog
name
is
something
which
is
being
used
by
lots
of
teams.
I
mean
just
just
I
mean
I
probably
am
getting
bit
selfish
here.
Lots
of
teams
internally
in
microsoft
are
using
that
api
and
it
has
oops
okay,
it
has
long
name,
and
I
think
that's
that's
something
which
is
not
easy
to
really
get
rid
of.
C
C
C
C
C
But
yeah
I
mean
okay.
I
think
that
probably
let
it
go
like
this
I'll
check.
If
somehow
it
is
not
I'm
just
thinking
how
how
we,
how
we
can
do
it,
otherwise.
C
C
C
C
So
if
it
is
not
required,
if
they
are
okay
with
that
change,
probably
I
think
we
can.
We
should
be
fine.
It
should
not
be
related
to
this
vi.
I
think
I
don't
want
this
pr
should
be
affected
with
that.
C
So
I
think
probably
if
they
are
okay
with
this
change
with
this
change,
I
think
I
think
it
should
should
be
fine.
Otherwise
I
may
raise
a
new
pr
and
sorry
about
that.
I
mean
adding
this
as
an
option,
parameter
either
creating
a
new
new
method
or
maybe
doing
adding
putting
it
under.
If
that
for
something
any
one
of
the
things
I
may
want
to
do
it.
C
C
C
C
F
C
A
C
Just
talking
about
the
microservice
application,
so
there
were
three
scenarios
which
we
felt.
Probably
we
can
we
have
c
plus
plus
haven't,
can
have
a
representation,
a
new
service
of
hosting
a
new
and
existing
service
through
hotel,
instrumented
engine
expansive
server
or
let
the
pilot,
a
python
service
make
a
call
to
cpr
library
instrumented
using
hotel,
cpv.
C
So
I'll
just
put
three
all
these
three
options,
this
the
first
one
is
something
I
think
which
looks
pretty
straightforward
and
I
think
we
can
definitely
contribute
and
if
the
cisco
teams
want
to
contribute
on
the
second
one,
they
can
do
that
third
would
be
whatever
stretch
code.
If
really
we
want
to
do
this
so
yeah.
Just
I
just
had
few
comments.
Some
feedback
on
this.
C
C
C
And
python
services,
which
are
I
mean,
which
had
more
than
one
service
of
that
language,
so
anything,
probably
if
you
have
gone
through
that
I
mean
I
think
I
don't
have
any
preference.
C
C
Okay,
I
add
some
alpine
base
image
and
script
to
build
open
elementary
sequence
space
inside
the
image.
This
can
be
actually
extended
by
other
distributions
by
adding
one
base
image
for
each
usage,
I'm
just
thinking
what
so
that
can
be
extended
for
other
we're,
saying
dead,
based
distress
day
or
even
rpm.
B
Based
yeah,
so
if
you
open
the
change
trial,
yeah,
okay,
so
right
now,
I'm
I'm
working
in
another
super
player
can
build
open
telemetry
with
just
c
make
file.
But
this.
D
B
Yes,
yes
right
and
then
we
can
just
call
see
making
those
images
and
we
have
open.
I.
C
C
C
C
F
F
D
B
C
C
C
B
C
Okay,
I
mean
just
just
I
don't
know
what
you
should
have
be
stressed
with
lots
of,
so
just
in
case
you
feel
something
I
mean
I
can
take
it
up
any
of
these
things.
You
feel
that
it's
something
I
can
contribute
or
something
just
just
let
me
know
I'll,
be
happy
to
contribute
on
any
of
these,
which
you
have
assigned
to
yourself
so
feel
free
to
just.
Let
me
know
right.