►
From YouTube: 2022-06-17 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry meeting-2's Personal Meeting Room
B
Now
I
have
a
I
have
this
crappy
chinese
webcam
that
I
bought
at
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
that
I've
had
perched
on
the
top
of
my
monitor,
but
my
monitor
is
a
lot
taller
than
it
used
to
be
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
where
I
can
put
the
camera.
So
it's
it's
not
like
way
high
up
or
it's
too
low
now
so
anyway,.
B
C
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
C
A
C
C
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
If
you,
if
you
want
to
still
use
the
bat
spam
processor
right,
yeah,
yeah,
hey
that
sounds
less
correct
than
a
concurrent
processor,
though,
like
for
example,
a
simple
spam
processor
is
already
concurrent,
because
that
doesn't
wait
for
anything.
And
so
you
can
imagine
just
having
a
small
batching
layer
and
a
simple
span
processor
and
then
that's
a
matching
current
processor
right.
B
C
D
B
D
D
B
D
B
All
it
does
is
say
the
sdk
needs
to
document
what
they
expect
out
of
an
export,
which
is,
I
think
we
have
done
so
return
a
completable
result
code.
The
password
process
will
block
or
spec.
You
can
implement
your
own
spam
process
with.
Doesn't
you
can
implement
an
exporter
that
just
returns
of
success
and
fire,
it's
fire
and
forget?
But
I
don't
think
there's
any
reason
why
our
out
of
the
box
exporters
need
to
be
converted
over
to
fire
and
forget
just
because
it's
possible
for
someone
to
write
a
fire.
Forget
exporter.
B
D
D
D
A
C
D
Because
see
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
diff
there,
what
it
used
to
say
is
the
batch
has
been
successfully
exported
that
it
means
the
data
is
sent
over
the
wire
and
delivered
to
the
destination
server,
so
that
part
was
explicitly
removed,
which
is
why
I
think
my
interpretation
is
what
at
least
the
author
intended
yeah.
This
is
a
very
strange.
B
B
C
B
C
I
mean
if
we
didn't
have
spam
processors,
maybe,
but
we
already
have
this
nice
split
between
spam,
processor
and
exporters.
So
why
would
we
not
leave
the
fire
and
forget
decision
of
the
spend
processor
so
that
the
exporters
can
be
used
in
either
way?
It's
just
losing
features
for
seemingly
no
benefit.
D
C
D
B
D
Design
that
I
mean
the
nice
thing
about
that
being
in
the
span
processor,
is
that
it's
exporter
agnostic,
the
not
nice
thing
is
that
you
end
up
re-serializing
over
and
over
for
each
retry
versus.
If
you
do
the
disk
persistence
and
the
exporter,
you
can
just
save
the
http
body
directly
to
disk
yeah.
That's
okay!.
C
C
D
A
B
B
B
D
A
Annotations
artifact,
as
is
out
of
the
the
sdk
repo
and
and
we
continue
publishing
that
until
2.0.0
and
just
have
two
versions
of
the
annotations.
We've
marked
the
sdk
one
deprecated
right
so
deprecate
one
but
continue
to
publish
it.
And
we
do.
We
reject
this
pr
and
ask
him
to
open
it
in
in
instrumentation
after
we've
moved
the
other
one
over
as
like
a
pattern
for
him
or
yeah.
D
A
B
So
my
proposal
would
be
to
for
someone
who's
really
good
at
doing
instrumentation,
not
it
to
to
take
the
existing
or
take
the
with
span
and
this
proposal
and
put
it
into
somewhere
in
instrumentation
a
new
artifact
of
instrumentation
and
work
on
trying
to
implement
the
metric
side.
I
mean.
Obviously
the
span
side
is
easy.
It's.
A
C
D
B
A
B
B
D
D
D
C
A
C
B
B
B
A
B
A
No
so
we
talked
we
talked
about
it,
and
so
the
prs
will
be
marked
as
stale
and
then
closed
automatically
after
some
like
relatively
short
period,
issues
will
stay
open
for
a
long
period
of
time
by
default,
but
we
we
have
a
tool
at
our
disposal
to
automatically
close,
which
is,
we
can
add,
a
label
to
them,
which
is
a
request,
author
feedback,
or
something
like
that.
Something
to
that
effect,
which
basically
says
like.
A
A
C
B
C
A
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
Figure
this
out,
speaking
of
which
I
spent
last
weekend,
I
was
trying
to
work
on
building
the
java
11,
okay
or
java
11
http
client
wrapper
instrumentation
for
instrumentation
project
and
it
basically
took
me
I
mean
I
didn't.
I
played
video
games
while
I
was
doing
this,
but
I
like
starting
getting
the
project
up
and
indexed
was
a
multi-hour
affair
on
my
windows
machine.
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
Yeah
I
mean
they
could
ideally
have
a
longer
time,
maybe,
but
if
that's
annoying
to
set
up
because
like
for
example,
tres
has
this
multi
export
thing,
that's
sort
of
just
an
example
of
the
idea
that
I
think
he
has
a
spec
pr
or
something
for
it.
So
that's
one
use
case.
We
have
draft
prs
working
on
the
spec.
B
D
C
A
You
know
an
auto
configure
environment
variable
or
system
property
that
you
can
flip
to
enable
them
as
the
default
aggregation,
which
is
something
that's
been
talked
about
in
the
spec
and
and
so
this
is
the
the
steps
we
need
to
take
to
make
that
happen.
I
feel,
like
that'd,
be
a
good
feature
to
get
in
by
for
for
the
next
release,
it's
a
good,
valuable
thing
for
users
and
could
help
speed
up
the
specification.
Stabilization
of
them.
B
Yeah,
I
am,
I
started
looking
through
that
pr
today
I
got
through
four
of
the
25
files,
and
that
was
all
of
the
ones
that
were
super
simple
and
didn't
have
any
interesting
content
in
them.
I
feel
like
it'd
be
good
to
get.
I
don't
know,
is
josh
surith
doing
much.
You
haven't
seen
him
at
this
point.
He.
B
A
B
A
Yeah
I
mean
we
can't
we
definitely
do
it.
You
know
we
have
to
do
some
some
stateful
transformation
because
we're
a
delta
backend.
So
we
have
to
convert
your
cumulative
metrics
to
delta,
so
some
things
happen.
Some
kind
of
strangeness
happens
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
your
series,
but
that's
it
works
for
the
most
part.
So
is
something
you
plug
into
your
prometheus
implementation.
A
B
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
it's
unless
you
do
unless
you
do
a
route
where
you
have
the
collector
that
scrapes
the
permeate
at
some
point,
and
then
you
know
converts
it
to
the
open
telemetry
data
model
on
exports
over
otlp,
that
that
would
be
the
only
other
way
that
I
can
think
of,
because
you
can't
exactly
configure
a
new
relic
to
have
access
to
your
your
private
data
center
yeah.
Obviously,.
C
C
C
A
A
What
you
have
to
there's
kind
of
a
there's
kind
of
a
caveat
there,
which
is
in
order
to
do
that
with
new
relic.
You
have
to
use
this
processor
for
the
collector,
the
cumulative
to
delta
processor,
and
so
you
have
to
pay
that
stateful
transformation
tax
yourself
rather
than
letting
new
relic
pay.
It.