►
From YouTube: 2020-10-29 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
A
Just
wait
a
few
minutes
for,
for
other
people
to
join,
see
alex,
has
some
meeting
notes
too.
So
I
think
got
called
to
do
something.
Oh
alex
is
here
what,
whatever.
C
Sorry,
I'm
I'm
going
to
be
here,
but
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
share
my
screen
because
I'm
I'm
doing
something
else
in
the
background,
but
just
extract
the
meeting
started.
I
I
am
distracted
yeah
yeah
for
for
those
who
don't
know,
there's
a
there's
like
an
hotel
workshop
in
python.
That
ted
is
organizing
ted
young.
So
if
you
know
anybody
who's
interested
in
learning
about
python
and
open
telemetry,
they
should
attend
it.
Although
it's
happening
right
now
and
it
might
be
too
late
to
sign
up
but
there'll
be
another
session.
Nice.
C
It's
it's
kind
of
something
that
lights
up
is
doing,
but
we're
we're
like
putting
on
workshops
for
like
different
languages.
So
there's
like
one
for
go
one
for
python,
one
for
right,
yeah!
So
it's
it's
pretty!
It's
pretty
cool
it
kind
of
it's
kind
of
good
because
it
gives
like
it
gives
us
some
like
external
input
into
how
the
different
like
sdks,
implementations
and
apis
are
working
together.
C
So
it's
kind
of
yeah
awesome,
it's
good
to
have
someone
who's,
not
in
the
code
trying
out
the
to
on
it
or
implementation,
to
make
fun
of
it.
A
Yeah,
okay
cool
looks
like
we
got,
some
new
faces,
joining
the
sig
and
by
new
faces
I
mean
names
that
I
have
never
recognized
before.
So
if
this
is
your
first
time
here,
you
say
some
just
some
introduction
or.
D
All
right:
hey,
I'm
asphar,
I'm
an
aws
intern
and
I'm
working
with
shovnik
on
a
remote
right,
explorer
or
prometheus
remote
right
exporter
for
python
nice.
Nice
right.
I
remember
that
awesome
welcome
yeah,
welcome
dude!
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Cool
yeah,
looking
forward
to
that
all
right,
nice
just
going
through
the
agenda
today,
we
got
a
bunch
of
topics
to
talk
about
before
we
head
right
into
the
pr's
and
issues.
First,
one
is
from
aaron.
Yes,
it's
a
very
important
issue
that
we've
been
putting
off
for
a
while
aaron
you
want
to
take
it
away
with
this.
B
Sure
I
think
everybody
remembers,
we
used
to
have
a
bunch
of
packages
that
were
called
opensource.exe.
B
I
think
they're
stuck
back
at
like
0.11
or
0.10,
and
we've
just
been
waiting
to
delete
them
because
we
renamed
all
the
packages.
B
Now
I
haven't
checked
the
traffic
for
those,
but
I
also
have
an
old
misnamed
package
for
the
google
cloud
for
a
google
cloud
exporter
or
two
of
them
actually
that
I
want
to
delete
and
there's
still
like
a
little
bit
of
traffic
to
them.
I
don't
want
to
just
delete
them
because
then
people's
builds
might
stop
breaking.
So.
B
A
Yeah
like
originally,
we
were
supposed
to
give
it
like
two
weeks
when
we
first
originally
talked
about
the
issue
and
then
see
the
traffic,
but
I
think
we
just
kind
of
forgot
and
escaped
their
minds
and
now,
like,
I
hope
it
didn't
bubble
into
something.
That's
like
people
are
using
a
lot
like.
I
saw
in
the
getter
that
you
had
several
people
like
using
the
wrong
version
of
the
google
trace,
the
cloud
exporter
yeah,
which
is
annoying
but
yeah.
A
No,
I
haven't
recently
been
able
to
look
at
the
what
the
traffic
is.
Usually
I
just
look
at
like
the
download
stats.
I
don't
know
if
that's
an
accurate
measurement,
but
yeah
yeah
like
usually
what
we
I
don't
know.
If
I
don't
remember,
if
we
like,
put
a
redirect,
link
or
anything
or
a
like
at
least
a
description
in
the
pi
pi
package
readme.
A
Hopefully
that
would
have
diverted
some
traffic,
but
it's
totally
possible
that
we
totally
forgot
about
this.
To
do
this
and
do.
C
A
Right
exactly
especially
when
it
comes
to
name
spaces,
like
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
saw
but
like
for,
like
vendor
specific
exporters.
Now
they
want
us
to
follow
like
a
specific
name,
even
though
like
we
have,
we
should
have
control
over
that,
but
they're
like
oh
yeah.
I
gotta
do
this
format
and
like
it's
like
not
what
we
have
right
now
so
who.
B
Okay,
yeah:
well,
that's
that's
good
and
back
because
at
least
we
know
we
won't
have
to
change
it
again,
hopefully
we'll
have
to
but
yeah
definitely
here
let
me
add
that.
A
Yeah,
just
for
like
any,
what's
it
called
vendors
who
actually
have
exporters
yeah,
yeah.
B
B
So
you
can't
even
install
the
package
which
it
would
be
okay
as
long
as
whoever's
using
those
old
packages
hasn't,
you
know
like
if
they,
if
they
didn't,
pin
it
to
exactly
that
version
in
whatever
code
they
have,
then
it
will
break
because
it
will
pull
in
like
the
new
patch
version
or
whatever,
if
they're,
using
like
the
whatever
that
you
know,
the
operator
like
the
tilde
equals
one
right
yeah
and
if
they
yeah,
I
just
don't,
want
to
break
anybody's
build,
but
I
do
want
to
get
rid
of
them
or
at
least
get
people
off
of
them,
because
I'm
still
seeing
some
traffic
and
it's
starting
to
cause
a
few
headaches.
B
A
I
mean
you
guys,
prefer
us
like
rip
the
band-aid
off
now,
because
we're
not
in
ga
yet
like
technically
we're
we're
like
we're
not
barred
from
like
making
breaking
changes
right
and
at
least
on
like
our
side,
we
don't
have
many
people
using
our
sdk.
Yet,
oh
sorry,
our
exporter,
yet
I
don't
know
like
I'm
for
like
just
like
the
what's
it
called
the
barring
you
like.
Not
if
you
try
to
install
it,
it's
like
it,
just
won't,
let
you
or
just
like
deleting
the
package
entirely.
B
Yeah
I
feel
like
if
we
just
delete
it
entirely,
we
might
get
some
angry
people
who
come
in
because
it's
it's
not
just
a
breaking
change.
It's
literally
just
like
a
backwards
breaking
change.
You
know
like
if
anybody
has
some
like
continuous
deployment
or
something
that's
expecting
to
download
that
it'll
just
break
their
entire
system.
So
obviously.
B
A
C
A
B
Yeah,
that's
true,
but
it
like
it
will
break
if
they
have
something
like
ongoing
right
now.
So
I
know
just,
for
instance,
it's
kind
of
like
the
equivalent
of
it.
If
somebody
deleted,
like
grpc,
all
of
our
builds
would
start
breaking
we'd
be
completely
stuck.
You
know
what
I
mean,
even
though
we
don't
have,
even
though
we
have
the
version
pinned
it.
Wouldn't
it
wouldn't
help,
because
now
our
entire,
like
ci
pipeline,
would
break.
A
Yeah,
but
it's
like,
but
grpc
io
is
in
ga,
like
that's
like
their
promise
to
their
customers.
Is
that
like
this?
Is
production
ready
software
like
for
us?
It's
like
we've.
We've
never
said
that
this
is
supposed
to
be
used
for
production
environments,
so,
like
that's
like
like
I'm
all
for
like
not
like
being
backwards,
combat
and
stuff,
but
like
we
have
the
freedom
of
you
know
not
saying
that
this
is
our.
A
A
B
B
So
if
somebody
has
a
pinned
version
of
the
old
one,
they
won't
actually
see
that
warning,
but
they're
using
that
you
know
until
the
equals
operator,
then
then
they
will
see
it
break,
but
they
won't
have
to
fix
it.
And
then
I
guess
the
last
option
is
we
could
pull
the
like,
whatever
it
is,
0.10
releases
and
we
could
upload
one
that
just
is
exactly
the
same
code
but
starts
logging,
a
warning
and
see
if
that
brings
down
the
user
account
and
then
delete
it
later.
A
B
B
C
A
C
Yanked
releases
of
pi
pi,
I'm
not
sure
what
that
is.
No.
The
yank
release
is
a
release,
that's
ignored
by
installer,
unless
it's
the
only
release
that
matches
the
version
specified
so
like,
unless
someone
has
like
an
equals,
equals
or
a
triple
equals
inside
their
config,
I
guess
they
wouldn't
be
using
those
packages,
like
I'm
just
curious
like
if
that's
a
way
of
at
least
identifying.
If
there's
people
that
are
specifically
using
like
certain
package
versions
or
whatever.
C
C
C
B
Maybe
we
should
just,
I
think
we
already
have
an
issue.
Maybe
we
should
take
the
discussion
there.
C
C
But
by
comparison
like
0.14
in
the
exporter
package
has
like
70
downloads.
A
I
think
it's
going
to
be
apparent
for,
like
the
at
least
the
packages
that
don't
have
a
lot
of
updates.
You
know,
like
requests,
will
definitely
have
a
lot
of
newer
downloads.
I
feel
so,
and
flask
and
django,
but
yeah
the
100.
Something
is
is
not
I'm
not
trying
to
get
140
people
like
messaging
me
at
night
or
something
so.
C
A
C
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
call
out
the
if
you
look
at
the
matrix
right
now.
It
looks
like
most
of
the
issues.
Oh.
C
Not
sharing
the
screen,
but
my
bad,
I
I
can.
I
can
talk
around
it.
I
can
people
can
just
visualize
yeah
anyway.
So
if
you,
if
you
look
at
the
rc
one
kind
of
requirements
from
the
compliance
compliance
matrix,
the
goal
is
really
to
only
have
the
tracer
and
the
context
propagation
and
the
baggage
sections
done
which,
if
you
look
at
where
we're
sitting
today
and
I
haven't
updated
it.
C
I
have
like
an
updated
version
of
this
sitting
on
my
laptop
we're,
we're
actually
looking
pretty
close
there's
only
if
you
scroll
down
and
there's
only
a
couple
of
issues
here
left
so
there's
one
around
recording,
exceptional
extra
parameters
that
has
an
open
pr
that
I'm
waiting
back
to
hear
from
the
contributor
they're.
I
think
yeah
this
one
you're
already
working
on
right
laden,
yeah.
So.
C
So
then,
you
scroll
down
to
the
context
propagation,
that's
kind
of
the
where
only
the
remaining
issues
are
so
there's
there's
an
issue
here
around
the
jager
propagator,
which
was
blocked
on
getting
this
last
one.
Getting
getter
has
an
argument,
returning
keys,
which
I
think
we
have
a
pr.
That's
got
one
approval.
C
I
know
that
oa
was
looking
at
it
and
he
was
the
only
person
that
was,
I
think,
we're
waiting
on
comments
on
but
anyway,
so
when
that's
merged,
then
there's
the
jaeger
propagator
pr
that
can
move
forward
and
then
there's
one
more
issue,
which
is
the
fields
which
we
don't
have
anybody
working
on,
and
I
did,
I
did
add
it
to
the
issues
in
our
dock
here,
but
we
just
need
someone
to
pick
up
this.
This
one
issue,
if
someone's
looking
for
an
issue
to
work
on
that,
would
be
really
helpful.
A
Yep,
nice
yeah,
so
we're
looking
pretty
good
for
this
the
issues
and
pr's
that
are
outstanding
too,
that
are
blocking
us
for
rc
one.
We
just
added
them
to
here
and
if
you
guys
have
any
other
pr's
or
issues
that
you
want
to
talk
about,
feel
free
to
add
them.
So
we
can
take
a
closer
look
at
them.
A
A
When
we
can
like
verbally
talk,
cool
alex
anything
else,
that's
pretty
much
it
for
that.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
I
think,
that's
all
I
wanted
to
highlight
just
that
there's
and
the
so
we
kind
of
we
created
a
label
called
required
for
ga
and
unfortunately
we
created
that
label
when
we
thought
everything
here
was
required
for
rc1,
but
it
it
isn't.
A
Yep
makes
sense,
yeah
and
also
we
we're
not
totally
sure
like
what
is
required
for
rc2,
yet
will
probably
be
updated
next
week.
So
look
forward
to
that
nice.
Okay
is
nathaniel
on
the
call
nice
awesome
okay.
So
I
wanted
to
set
some
time
to
talk
about.
Nathaniel's
god-like
work
these
past
few
weeks
about
moving
these
stuff
into
the
country,
repo.
A
Yeah
yeah
no
worries
just
wanted
to
kind
of
bring
to
the
attention
that,
like
there's
a
lot
of
changes
going
on
right
now,
especially
because
we're
nearing
ga-
and
it
is
I've,
come
to
realize
it
is
making
it
difficult
to.
You
know
like
for
nathaniel
to
have
to
move
all
this
stuff
for
the
country,
people
and
there's
like
a
small
timing
window
in
which,
like
no
changes,
are
happening,
you
have
to
move
everything
over
and
then,
like
people
can
start
working
on
that
stuff.
A
So
I
don't
really
know
how
to
handle
this
right
now,
because
there's
always
going
to
be
like
new
pr's
coming
in,
and
we
can't
really
like
freeze
everyone
from
making
changes.
So
I
wonder
if
like
if
you
guys
have
any
ideas
on
how
we
can
do
this
like?
Should
we
just
set
like
a
time
in
which,
like
we
have
like
an
instrumentation
freeze
or
something
like
that
and
like
when,
should
we
do
this.
F
But
the
only
thing
blocking
us
from
being
completely
moved
over
is
the
one
rewrite
grpc
pr,
that's
the
only
one
that
will
stop
us
from,
because
I
I
have
my
tests
set
up
for
the
ci
pipeline
on
the
contribution
and
everything
is
passing,
except
for
the
grpc
test
right
now,
because
I
think
I
saw
aaron
approved
it
this
morning,
and
so
that's
good.
It's
ready
to
go
in
terms
of
its
two
approvals,
but
now
the
tests
are
failing
again,
and
so
now
we
need
the
contributor
to
change
that.
F
So
I
mean
I
I
would
appreciate
if,
if
we
could
freeze
for
even
just
two
days
and
if
the
contributor
doesn't
fix
the
tests,
then
we
can
fix
them.
But
it's
like
we're
so
close
like
all
we
need.
Is
that
one
pr
to
get
over
and
then
I
can
just
merge
my
testing
pr
and
then
we'll
be
fully
moved
over,
and
then
we
can
do
the
giant
pr
to
delete
everything
in
the
core
repo.
F
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
that
makes
sense
to
me
and
then
at
least
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
of
a
little
bit
of
breathing
time,
breathing
room
as
well
so
yeah.
C
C
Okay,
maybe
I
can,
I
can
get
the
release
and
then
we
can.
I
don't
know,
freeze
on.
A
A
Yeah,
whatever
like
yeah,
because
I
don't
want
to-
I
don't-
want
nathan
to
be
blocked
like
to
keep
being
blocked
on
this.
So
it
looks
like
the
the
pr
and
the
contributor
for
the
fixing
of
the
tests
should
be
merged
soon
and
after
the,
whenever
you
do
the
release,
we
can
like
just
be
strict
on
like
the
prs
and
like
be
like.
Oh,
like
you
just
don't
touch
the
instrumentations
or
the
exporters
for
like
nathan.
A
I
don't
know
how
much
how
long
you
need,
but
we
could
probably
say
like
three
days.
Maybe
it's
like
it's
like
flexible,
just
yeah.
If.
F
F
F
F
C
Do
you
want
to
should
we
should
we
plan
to
like
get
the
release
out
either
like
today
or
tomorrow,
and
then
nathaniel
like
what,
if
we
say
the
freeze
is
monday?
Does
that
give
you
like
enough
time
to.
F
A
Awesome
cool
sounds
good.
Can
you
link
the
grpc
pr
sure.
A
Okay,
so
cool
yeah,
let's
say:
if
we
get
the
release
in
neither
today
tomorrow,
we'll
freeze
it
from
monday
nice.
I
know.
F
It
doesn't
link
there
yeah
there
you
go
yeah,
it's
it's
like
alex.
Has
a
great
point
like
like
this
is
a
great
pr
and
it
does
a
lot
for
grpc
and
aaron
had
some
really
helpful
comments.
So
that
was
great,
but
I
don't
know
I
looked
at
the
test.
Then
it's
it's
just
an
import
error,
so
I
don't
know
why
they're
breaking
either,
but
I
mean
if
he
doesn't
fix
it
I'll
figure
out
how
to
fix
it.
A
Okay
sounds
good,
looks
like
he's
pretty
active
with
it,
so
it's
not
too.
A
B
A
B
F
You
know
also
in
the
meantime
I
could
so
it
was
currently
as
a
draft
pr,
but
I
could
convert
the
testing
one
to
a
real
pr
and
then
that
we
can
do
asynchronously
people
could
review
it
and
make
sure
that
that's
what
they
want
when
the
contributor's
ready
to
go
in
so
I'll
I'll,
add
it
to
the
doc
here
and
flag
it
in
people
can
add
the
review
to.
If
this
is
what
we
want
for
testing.
A
All
right,
nice
cool
second
thing
kind
of
wanted
to
bring
up
was.
I
was
looking
at
this
community
issue
that
you
were
talking
about
that
you're
involved
with
nathaniel
looks
like
there's
like
some
discussion
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
have
a
personal
access
token
for
maintainer
level
versus
the
what
the
whole
org
was
there
any
consensus
about
what
we're
doing
or
is
there
anything
you're
blocked
on
for
this.
F
C
F
Perfect
world
would
be
to
create
a
bot
or
an
app
which
only
had
permissions
to
python,
open,
telemetry,
org
stuff
and
create
a
personal
access
token
for
that.
But
in
the
meantime,
like
the
java,
guys
have
done
well
to
just
have
one
of
the
maintainers
create
their
personal
access
token
for
now,
because
then
that
personal
attack
access
token
is
limited
to
just
public
repos,
on
which
the
maintainer
has
access
to,
and
it's
they're
just
allowed
to
trigger
workflows.
F
So,
if
you
add
like
either
you
or
alex
to
both
the
contrib
and
the
core
repo,
then
that
will
allow
us
to
create
to
trigger
workflows
across
those
repos
based
on
pushes
to
pr's
in
the
core
repo
and
pushes
to
pr's
in
the
contribution.
A
So,
just
to
clarify
the
purpose
of
this
was
to
like
have
an
ability
to
like
run
the
the
ci
for
the
contrib
repo
whenever
there's
a
possible
breaking
change
in
the
main
repo.
F
A
Cool,
so
is
there
what's
the
action
item
for
this
like?
Are
we
just
waiting
on.
F
Sergey,
I
think
no,
I
think
survey
is
just
waiting
for
more
comments,
but
if
we
don't
have
comments,
then
we
can
go
ahead
on
our
own.
I
would
say
if
you
guys
are
willing
to
create
that
personal
access.
Token.
A
F
And
then
add
it
to
the
secrets
of
both
repos,
but
then
you
have
to
be
added
as
a.
I
think
you
guys
already
are
trig
as
added
as
people
with
access
to
the
contributor.
A
Right
alex:
is
there
anything
we
need
from
like
the
community
in
terms
of
this
issue,
or
can
we
just
go
ahead
and
do
it
yeah.
C
I
I
mean
I
guess
we
can
do
it
for
now
and
just
kind
of
address
like
change
it
later.
If
that's
something
that
the
community
decides
on
what
the
right
path
moving
forward
is,
I
don't
know
I
was
just
my
only
concern
is
like
you
know,
we
we've
already
kind
of
had
issues
with
access
tokens
or
or
whatever
secrets
that
were
created
by
someone
that
that
has
moved
on
from
the
project.
So
it's
just
I
don't
wanna.
I
don't
want
that
to
become
a
problem
or
a
blocker.
So
oh.
B
I
know
I
know
that
we
we've
gone
over
a
few
approaches
for
this,
and
I
know
that
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
time
for
this.
I
was
wondering
if
you
had
any
chance
to
look
into
running
the
action
like
directly
on
our
repo
with
like
with
the
share
dml
through
github
actions,.
F
Oh
sorry,
it
cut
out
for
me.
Can
you
repeat
what
you
said:
okay,.
B
Yeah,
I
was
wondering
if
you
had
any
chance
to
try
triggering
like
the
build
directly
in
the
ci
for
the
core
repo
with
just
sharing
the
yaml
across,
because
I
think
github
actions
has
a
mechanism
to
do
that.
And
I
don't
think
it
would
require
a
token.
B
That's
that's
what
I
mean
like
do
you
write
your
own
action
that
that's
just
like
a
bit
of
vml
that
can
be
reused
across
repos.
F
F
F
Something
like,
I
think,
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
totally
do.
I
think
we
could
write
a
separate
like
even
just
copy
and
paste
the
contribution
and
change
some
parameters
so
that
it
downloads
the
control,
repo
and
runs
the
tests
on
there.
But
I
don't
know
is:
is
that
something
that
we
would
want?
Instead,
I
mean
it
would.
F
Sure
yeah
that'd
be
great.
I
don't
know
the
benefit
of
this
one
is
that,
like
all
the
contrib
tests
are
run
in
the
contrib
repo
but
other
than
other
than
that
like,
like,
I
said,
I
haven't
looked
into
what
it
would
mean
to
just
copy
over
the
ammo
and
do
it
all
in
the
core
repo.
B
Yeah
yeah
and
then
one
other
benefit
of
this
second
approach
with
the
ammo
is:
if
you
have
the
right
parameters,
you
could
potentially
like
run
a
test
against.
Also
remember:
there's
there
are
those
refs
for
the
that
you
can
use
for
prs
on
github,
so
you
could
particularly
like
if
you
did
have
a
pr
in
the
contrib
repo
to
fix
the
breaking
changes.
F
B
F
Sure
yeah
we're
not
we're
not
here
yet
so
like,
even
if
they
create
the
personal
access
token,
I
think
maybe
the
best
case
would
be
I'll,
create
I'll,
create
the
pr
to
have
the
test
on
the
contrib
repo,
and,
if
you
guys
like
it,
we
could
just
literally
just
copy
and
paste
it
over
to
the
core
repo,
and
it
would
run
it
against
that.
One
too,
that
could
be
a
totally
working
solution.
C
A
Okay,
I
guess
for
now
we'll
still
proceed
with
the
access
token,
so
sure
I
don't.
A
Yeah,
nice
also
getting
a
bunch
of
emails
about
packages
I
own
being
yanked,
so
I
wonder
who's
doing
that.
C
C
A
All
right,
so
it
looks
like
we
got
a
an
urgent
pr.
Damn
it's
like
never
had
one
of
these
before
oh
yeah,
the
1036.
Is
it
this
one
alex?
This
looks
incorrect
yeah.
I
believe
I
think.
C
C
C
Yeah
anyway,
so
I
I
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
it.
So
I
know
there
was
some
comments
from
you
laden
that
the
time
signs
weren't
being
set
correctly-
and
I
think
diego
kind
of
dove
really
deep
into
our
metrics
sdk
implementation
and
basically,
what
he
did
for
like
the
better
part
of
like
a
week
now,
has
been
to
try
and
get
to
a
place
where
our
sdk
was
as
well
implemented
as
the
go
sdk
and
so
he's
been
kind
of
non-stop.
C
Finding
more
and
more
issues
that
I
think
he
you
know,
he
kind
of
took
a
look
at
it
and
said.
Like
you
know,
this
change
is
going
to
be
giant
if
he
has
to
go
and
implement
all
the
changes
so
sure
I
think
he
wanted
to
take
a
step
back
and
see
if
it
can
get
this
pr
merged.
We
we
care
about
it
as
an
organization,
even
though
it's
not
it's
not
fully
ready
to
go
yet,
but
then
he's
planning
on
opening
issues
to
track
all
the
work.
C
That's
needed
to
get
the
sdk
to
a
place
where
it's
kind
of
on
par
with
go
so.
A
Oh,
no,
that's
great,
like
yeah,
I'm
totally
for
like
it
was
actually
something
that,
like
I
was
planning
on
doing
for
a
while,
but
like
just.
We
just
have
other
priorities
right
now,
but
yeah
like
for
sure
yeah.
The
original
issue
was
that,
like
he
included
all
of
those
changes
without
saying
anything
in
the
issues
or
it
doesn't
correspond
to
what
the
issue
name
is
or
like
the
pr
name
is
so
like
yeah,
it's
better
to
keep
things
small
and
then
yeah.
A
A
Okay,
cool
I'll
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
this.
I
was
already
looking
at
this
before
so
awesome.
Thank
you.
Whoops.
B
A
Not
this
issue,
I
think
the
plan
is
like
for
diego
to
actually
compile
a
list
of
the
differences
between
us
and
go.
C
A
A
C
C
B
Crazy
yeah,
I
was
gonna,
say
I've
also
been
meaning
to
look
at
that
because
it
seems
like
the
metrics.
Sdk
is
just
gonna,
be
a
documentation
of
the
go
sdk
so
like
yeah
yeah.
A
A
C
It's
like
yeah,
I
mean
I
I
feel
like.
I
feel
like
some
of
the
issue
around
the
metric
sdk
discrepancies
is,
I
think,
when
we,
when
we
did
the
original
spike
work
or
or
prototyping
around
trying
to
get
like
the
metrics
sdk
implemented
in
the
different
languages.
I
think
all
the
different
languages
kind
of
implemented
it
to
where
it
was
back
in
november,
without
necessarily
the
expectation
that
it
was
going
to
be
like
changed
pretty
drastically,
and
I
think.
A
C
Now
we're
in
that
state,
where,
like
people
have
spent
additional
time
tweaking
the
code
that
was
already
existing
in
the
code
base
and
some
like
there
might
be
some
amount
of
ownership
or
attachment
that
has
grown
onto
some
people,
and
so
it's
just
like
making
drastic
changes
is
complicated.
So
now,
like
every
sig
is
like
slightly
different
in
its
implementation.
A
A
Okay,
cool:
if
anyone,
if
no
one
else,
has
any
other
competing
topics,
we
could
just
start
with
all
the
pr's
and
stuff.
All
right
sounds
good.
Let's
take
a
look
at
this.
A
What
is
this?
I
have
a
pr,
it's
like
yeah,
not
really
it's
like
this
is
the
issue
from
a
while
ago.
Yeah
it's
just
splitting
up
the
tracers.
I
think
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
yeah.
It
was
just
open
22
hours
ago.
I
just
put
your
name
there,
because
you
were
in
the
reviewer.
Surprisingly,
yusuke
reviewed
it.
So
you
know
got
him
it's
pretty
good
cool
yeah,
so
it
should
be
pretty
straightforward.
A
Cool
just
wanted
to
call
that
out.
I
don't
think
away
is
here
today.
Actually,
so
that's
all
right,
yeah!
This
is
another
pr!
That's
waiting
on
his.
He
made
some
comments
for
this,
but
you
know
if
anyone
else
wants
to
take
a
look
this.
This
is
kind
of
blocking
us
from
this
is
one
of
the
important
rc1
features
that
we
need
to
get
in
so
yeah.
A
That's
that's
a
pretty
high
priority
there.
I
don't
know
why
I
put
question
marks
for
this.
We'll
see.
Oh
yeah,
this
nonsense.
A
Okay
right,
so
I
think
the
last
time
we
talked
about
this,
which
is
literally
seven,
eight
we're
so
it
was
during
our
sig.
I
think
we
we
decided
that,
like
we
just
wanted
to
get
this
in
and
then
like
someone
else,
can
pick
up
the
tests,
because
we've
been
waiting
on
this
for
way
too
long
and
then
like
after
that,
I
think,
like
we
just
wanted
him
to
address
aaron's
comments,
but
I
don't
know
what
happened
like.
A
A
Aaron!
Sorry,
oh.
A
Oh
okay,
yeah
all
good,
so
yeah!
This
is
just
another.
This
is
an
exporter
thing,
so
we
don't
really
need
this
for
rc1.
Necessarily
it's
just
that.
It's.
A
Since
september
21st-
and
it
seems
like
he's
not
fully,
you
know,
we
can't
really
finish
call
this
pr.
Sorry,
this
issue
finished.
If
we
don't
finish
the
tests
and
stuff
so
just
wanted
to
get
that
in.
B
B
Yeah
yeah
and
it
needs
to
be
one
more
approve
from
a
maintainer
or
a
approver.
A
Oh
sure,
yeah,
both
me
and
alex,
are
on
it.
So
I
guess
yeah,
okay,
because
we
we
could.
We
could
do
that
easily.
Nice
thanks
cool.
C
So
I
need
my
night
sorry,
I
was
just
waiting
for
aaron's
approval
to
approve
it,
because
I
don't
want
to
approve
it
with
right,
like
outstanding
comments
there.
So
yeah.
A
Like
I
already
like
did
my
pass
through,
I'm
probably
gonna.
Do
it
again
because
he
made
a
bunch
of
these
commits
that,
like
I
haven't,
looked
at
it
since,
like
way
back
here,
you
know
so
like
23
days
ago,
so
yeah
yeah
I'll
probably
take
a
look
again
pretty
simple,
so
right,
exactly
yeah,
okay
cool
yeah,
let's
just
hopefully
we
could
get
that
in
quick
yeah.
We
talked
about
this.
A
So
we
have
this
pr
from
away
that's
like
way
long
ago
about,
I
think.
Originally.
This
was
like
a
huge
pr
for
automatic
exporter
provider
setup
for
everything,
but
I
think
now
he
like
did
it
only
for
otlp,
which
is
why
we
said
it
might
be
important
for
ga,
not
necessarily
for
rc1,
but
you
know
still
pretty
important.
A
It
is
pretty
cool
and
I
think
I'll
sorry,
diego
left
some
comments,
but
doesn't
seem
like
he's
in
the
call
today
so
just
wanted
something
to
bring
up
so
I'll.
Probably
we
probably
should
resurface
this
next
week.
A
A
Oh,
we
already
talked
about
this,
but
yeah
just
wanted
to
emphasize
the
even
more
importance
of
these.
So
we
need
the
part
of
it.
What
is
it
this
is
the
fields
one
right
right
exactly
so
for
propagators,
we're
not
we're
not
able
to.
A
We
don't
have
a
fields
property
in
order
to
propagate
these.
It's
just
like
a
feature,
we're
missing
pretty
much
so
yeah.
You
know
if
so,
if
you're
looking
for
stuff
to
do
and
like
you
want
to
work
on
stuff,
that
is
highly
prioritized,
and
these
are
the
ones
to
look
at
same
with
this.
One
sdk
should
not
provide
access
to
spam's
attributes.
A
A
I'm
not,
I
don't
remember
if
we
had
a
outcome
of
you
know,
I
guess
we
could
talk
about
it
now.
A
So
the
thing
with
the
we
had
several
issues
that
related
to
making
stuff
immutable
and
like
forcing
people
to
not
to
like
use
normal
constructors
and
use
our
apis
to
you
know
work
with
the
features
that
we
provide,
and
I
think
the
issue
with
the
this
problem,
that's
like
might
be,
might
be
like
bigger
than
just
you
know
this
specific
issue
right
here
is
that,
like
we
should
be
consistent
in
what
we're
doing
like.
A
If
we're
going
to
be
very,
very
restrictive,
we
need
to
apply
this
for
all
things
like,
like
all
things
span,
attributes
all
all
all
properties
of
the
span
and
stuff,
not
just
like
you
know
the
things
that
matter
that
were
called
out
in
the
specs,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
be
this
restrictive,
especially
because
python
is
a
dangerous
language
like
it's
very
difficult
to
capture
everything
that
the
user
can
do.
A
So
I
don't
know
what
do
you
guys
think?
Should
we
just
have
like
a
set
of
rules
or
like
use
cases.
A
Yeah
like
especially
because,
like
you
know
like
these
things,
these
ones
that
we
created
issue
for
us
are
were
documented
in
the
specs,
but
like
a
lot
of
attributes
and
like
those
relate
to
like
implementation,
details
and
those
weren't
specifically
outlined
in
the
specs,
and
especially
because,
like
you
know,
in
python,
you
can't
actually
make
stuff
private
or
public
sorry
protected
or
anything.
A
Unaccessible,
but
should
we
be
strict
about
that
and
for
every
single
thing
right
so
for
this,
like
should
not
actually
provide
access
to
spam's
attributes
besides
spam
context,
does
that
mean
that
we
have
to
encapsulate
all
of
the
properties
of
the
span
in
some
immutable?
B
Yeah
so
isn't
there
in
the
spec
like
a
read-only
span
and
like
a
writable
span
and
like
a
right-only
span
right.
B
A
A
A
A
B
Yeah
I
have
seen
something
like
this
in
the
javascript
implementation,
so
I
think
they're
influencing
it
there
but
yeah.
If
it's
just
like
just
the
context,
should
be
readable.
I
mean
we're.
Obviously
gonna
have
to
circumvent
that
inside
of
like
the
exporters
and
stuff
like
that.
So
I
think
that
was
the
idea
of
the
read
readable
span
and
the
read
write
spin
is
that,
like
in
the
exporter,
you
would
get
one
that's
read,
write
and
then
in
the
instrumentation
you
would
get
a.
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
I
don't
even
know
if
that,
if
these
spans
were
what
what
that
was
for
you
know,
maybe
we
could
utilize
these,
but.
A
B
I
mean,
like,
I
think,
a
reasonable
implementation
would
be
like
have
underscores
and
have
properties
like
so
have
underscore
instance,
members
and
then
use
properties,
and
if
it's
supposed
to
be
write
only
or
something
you
can
have
the
setter
and
then
have
the
just
like
the
readable
one
raise
an
exception.
B
A
Right,
I
have
to
think
about
it
more,
but
if
you
could
comment
in
this
issue,
I
think
I
could
wrap
my
head
around
it
better
yeah.
E
Sorry,
I
just
do
you
see
them?
It's
not
just
convo,
I
mean
well,
it's
related
to
and
shake
on
it
on.
Can
you
just
recap,
but
you
just
included.
A
Is
this
oh
shifting
something?
Okay,
we
didn't
conclude
anything
we're
still
we're
still
like
discussing
we're,
not
sure
exactly
on
like
how
we
should
do
this
yet,
especially
like
across
the
board,
but
we're
continuing
the
conversation
in
the
issue.
So
if
you
want
to
know
what's
going
on
just
refer
to
that.
B
B
A
Second
sounds
good
yeah,
but
like
that
that
is
also
something
that's
blocking
us
for
rc,
so
yep
cool.
We
have
a
couple
of
minutes
left.
We
could
like
kind
of
speed
through
these
important
issues.
Here
right,
I
made
a
like
a
influx
of
issues
yesterday
related
to
semantic
conventions.
A
There
are
there
were
a
couple
of
not
a
couple.
There
was
a
lot
of
discrepancies
between
our
implement
our
implementations
for
instrumentations
versus
what.
C
A
Needed
for
the
specs
and
I
kind
of
split
them
up
into
you-
know
like
rpc
messaging
database
and
http
they're,
pretty
straightforward,
like
you,
we
just
need
to
go
through
our
instrumentations
and,
like
you
know,
just
adhere
to
the
specs
and
but
it
is
important.
So
I
also
noticed
these
because,
like
on
the
azure
exporter
side,
we're
missing
a
lot
of
fields
that
we
need
that
don't
get
populated
for
all
instrumentations.
A
B
Yeah
this
is
slightly
related
to.
I
have
another
issue
about
generating
the
semantic
convention
constants,
which
I
think
they're
doing
in
java,
and
I
think
it
would
probably
make
this
a
fair
bit
easier.
Just
because
you
know
we'll
just
be
sticking
those
constants
in
it
and
be
done
with
it.
We
won't
have
to
revisit
it
again
right.
A
A
Cool
awesome
yeah.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
pick
up
like
pretty
straightforward,
you
know
stuff,
that's
pretty
important,
like
the
semantic
conventions
are
very
important.
So
nice,
okay
quickly.
Next
one
wait
hawaii's
not
here
today,
so
I
guess
we
can't
really
go
over
this.
That's.
A
Yeah
yeah,
like
I
wanted
to
bring
this
up
because
there
was,
I
think
in
last
week
there
was
like
some
person
who
came
that
was
specifically
for
documentation
or
something
and
like
away
introduced
him.
So
I
thought
he
could
have
gave
us
more
context.
A
Yeah
no
worries
yeah,
so
this
is
a
pretty
old
issue,
we're
kind
of
just
I
was
just
going
through
the
ones
that
we
had
open.
That
was
required
for
g8.
C
B
Yeah
we
signed
this
to
me
and
I
was
supposed
to
read
through
it
again
and
come
to
a
conclusion
yeah.
This
looks
like
a
nightmare.
A
A
But
it
is
required
for
ga,
I
believe,
and
if
you
want
to
have
a
discussion
about
it,
you
know
yeah,
like
any
questions
you
might
have
like
feel
free
to
just
like
ping
us
as
well,
because
I
haven't
really
taken
a
look
at
this
either.
So.
B
A
I
think
that's
pretty
much
it
unless
if
anyone
else
has
some
stuff
that
they
want
to
talk
about
in
last
three
minutes.
F
A
F
F
A
F
A
F
A
So
that
would
be
pretty
useful.
I
don't
know
if
she's
gonna
specifically
outline
what
the
naming
conventions
will
be,
but
I
definitely
read
it
somewhere
so
yeah.
Let
me
try
to
find
that.
F
Okay,
thanks
and
also
I
just
added
to
the
bottom
of
the
pr
list
here:
the
prs
for
the
the
pr
for
adding
the
tests
to
contrib.
So
if
you
guys
had
any
comments
on
that,
that'd
be
appreciated.
A
Right
cool
sounds
good.
We
really
need
to
kind
of.
I
haven't
really
taken
a
look
at
the
contrib
repo
at
all,
so
we
might
have
to
set
up
like
a
system
or
something
so
with
that
we
could
get
reviews
better.
F
Okay,
yeah,
I
can't
add
reviewers
myself,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
the
power
to
do
that,
but
I
know
alex
has
been
really
good
about
reviewing
them.
So
there's
that.
F
A
Cool
all
right,
so
if
there's
no
other
pressing
issues,
you
know,
I
guess
that's
it
for
this
week,
I'll
see
you
guys
next
week.