►
From YouTube: 2022-09-07 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry@cncf.io's Personal Meeting Room
A
B
All
right,
I
guess
the
first
thing
this
first
round.
I
was
back
from
vacation
for
those
that
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
he'll
make
the
call
today
just
because
he
took
a
month
off
of
work,
and
this
is
only
his
third
day
back.
B
So
he's
probably
got
other
things
to
worry
about
right
now,
but
for
those
particularly
that
pay
attention
to
the
contributory
bow
you'll
be
happy
to
hear
that
he's
back
first
topic
I
have
here
is
just
a
few
metrics
ga
prs
that
need
to
be
reviewed
and
merged,
and
such
one
is
just
a
documentation,
pr
which
should
be
relatively
simple,
to
get
reviewed
and
merged.
B
C
Yeah,
when
the
metric
reader
and
periodic
metric
rita
were
were
implemented,
the
spec
was
a
bit
different,
so
this
br
aims
to
update
the
metric
reader
to
be
more
in
line
with
the
specification
and
where
the
spec
is
rather
vague.
It
tries
to
match
the
other
language
implementations
as
closely
as
possible
yeah.
It
also
has
a
bit
of
a
side
effect
on
the
exporters
which
now
have
an
aggregation,
temporality
selector
and
an
aggregation
selector
that
is,
that
is
optional
now
so
yeah.
B
Okay
and
then
the
third
one
here,
I
believe
the
author
of
this
pr
does
not
normally
join
the
meetings,
but
this
is
just
adding
type
generics
to
the
meter
methods
for
like
create
counter
and
and
such
instead
of
just
returning.
B
You
know
types
that
are
too
general.
This
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
type
safe.
I
was
hoping
to
get
well.
This,
I
think,
is
not
technically
a
breaking
change.
I
do
want
to
get
this
done
before
1.0,
so
that
we
can
release
the
api
packages
as
infrequently
as
possible.
B
B
Okay,
the
next
topic
is
bringing
the
api
into
the
main
repo.
A
few
weeks
ago.
We
opened
an
issue
for
this
just
to
we
where
we
talked
about
it
and
there
was
general
agreement,
but
we
opened
an
issue
to
gather
you
know:
potential
feedback
from
people
who
are
not
in
these
meetings.
Normally,
nobody
seems
to
have
objected,
so
I
am
going
to
handle
that
this
week.
I
already
started
a
little
bit
of
work
on
it
this
morning.
B
I
don't
expect
it
to
be
a
huge
amount
of
work
to
do,
but
the
pr
will
probably
appear
to
be
quite
massive,
just
keep
in
mind
when
it
when
it
opens.
I
will
not
be
changing
any
of
the
code
during
the
pr,
so
it
should
be
relatively
easy
to
review,
but
it
is
very
important,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
it
right.
A
A
B
Oh
yeah,
I
would
really
appreciate
yeah.
Okay,
do
you
mind
putting
a
link
just
straight
to
it
in
the
in
either
the
document
or
the
chat?
So
I
don't
have
to
go
searching
for
it.
B
To
find
anyways
yeah,
the
the
api
repository
was
initially
made
as
a
fork
of
the
or,
I
think,
yeah
as
a
fork
of
the
main
repository.
So
the
histories
should
be
relatively
easy
to
merge
back
together.
A
B
Yeah
it
is,
I
mean
it's
not
a
fork
in
the
github
sense
of
the
term
like
we
did
not
use
the
fork
button
to
create
it,
but
it
was
a
direct
copy
of
the
history
and
then
just
with
a
bunch
of
things
removed
and
deleted
and
stuff
like
that
and
then
moved
around.
B
Yeah,
I
would
think
so,
but
yeah
we'll
see
you
never
know
what
git
is
always
kind
of
a
difficult
challenge,
but
thank
you
for
the
for
the
suggestion.
I'll
definitely
make
sure
look
at
that
script.
B
So
one
additional
or
anyone
have
questions
on
that
before
we
move
on
or
objections.
Now
is
the
time
because
I'm
actually
going
to
be
working
on
it.
So
all
right.
The
next
topic
is
the
logs
api
martin
reached
out
to
me
last
week
asking
about
a
test
failure.
B
C
B
Mark
pointed
me
to
a
different
pr
that
he
had
opened,
which
rolls
back
lincolnator
because
they
had
a
very
similar
problem.
In
other
prs,
it
wasn't
in
the
w3c
tests,
but
it
was
a
very
similar
compilation,
failure
and
we
just
re-ran
these
tests,
and
it
now
appears
that
the
w3c
tests
are
passing
so
martin.
If
you're
on
the
call
yeah.
I
believe
that
that
should
unblock
you.
I
haven't
node
16
failure
yeah.
I.
C
I
have
looked
at
that
one
and
it
seems
like
there's
some
flakiness
that
was
introduced
in
the
in
the
latest,
pr
that
was
merged
into
main,
so
re-running
that
would
probably
fix
it,
but
we
we
probably
need
to
do
a
fix
to
make
the
test
less
flaky.
B
Okay,
let's
see
which
is
this.
B
Mark,
do
you
mind
just
creating
an
issue
for
that,
so
I
don't
have
to
do
over
on
a
call.
A
A
B
A
B
Let
me
take
one
a
quick
look
at
it,
but
florina
hasn't
approved
it,
but
he
generally
is
a
fairly
thorough
reviewer
and
if
he
has
marked
all
of
his
as
as
resolved,
that's
a
good
sign
too
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
it,
but
yeah
I'll
try
to
get
that
merged
today.
If
I
can
okay,
thank
you.
A
B
More
test
failures:
we
had
some
contrib
test
failures.
There
were
two
last
week,
two
pr's
that
were
open
by
nev.
There's
still
one
that's
open,
I
it's
just
I
I
reviewed
it,
but
I
didn't
want
to
just
merge
it
with
only
myself
reviewing
it,
since
it
touches
quite
a
bit
of
files,
and
I
am
honestly
not
a
karma
expert
or
a
webpack
expert.
So
I
would
appreciate
more
eyes
on
this
one.
If
possible,
it
is
blocking
some
other
contrib
pr's.
B
I
believe
now
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
there.
I
know
one
of
them
was
in
your
local
environment
only,
but
I
think
that
was
the
other
one.
A
That
was
the
other
one
yeah.
This
one
is
blocking
another
person
but
effectively
apart
from
one
file
change.
This
is
just
a
rollback
of
the
mentioned
pro
mode.
That's
in
there
now
the
one
file
changes,
because
when
I
completely
roll
back,
we
still
needed
to
upgrade
one
upgrade
one
version,
so
there
should
be.
A
From
link
changes,
yeah.
B
B
No
okay,
so
this
next
issue
we
actually
did
talk
about
last
week.
This
was
so
the
the
name
is
finalized
metrics
api,
but
it
really
has
to
do
with.
Are
we
going
to
merge
it
into
the
main
api
package
or
not?
And
last
week
we
essentially
decided
no
for
bundle
size
reasons,
among
others
mark
brought
it
to
my
attention
today,
though,
that
the
metrics
api
package
actually
does
depend
on
the
main
api
package
for
several
modules
or
or
dependencies
so
nev.
A
Sorry
it
wasn't
listening,
it
was
a
question
again.
Did
you
include
the
metrics
api
in
the
api
yeah?
I
don't
want
that
because
that
will
cause
size,
packaging
issues.
B
B
Oh,
I
get
it
so
if
you
include
the
main
api
you're,
not
getting
metrics,
I
see
what
you
mean:
yeah,
okay,
one
thing
that
I
did
want
to
say
about
this:
I'm
merging
the
api
back
into
the
main
rebound.
B
Now
I
think
after
that's
done,
I
would
like
to
split
out
the
api
packages
or
the
api
signals
into
their
own
packages,
and
then
you
know,
probably
just
have
the
the
main
api
package
re-export
resources
from
the
the
api
sub
packages,
but
I
do
think
that
that
will
be
a
long
term
project.
B
It
won't
be
something
that's
done
overnight
and
probably
not
not
very
quickly,
but
eventually
we
should
be
in
a
situation
where,
if
you
only
want
to
use,
you
know
metrics,
for
example,
you
shouldn't
have
to
depend
on
the
trace
context
package
and
some
things
like
that,
so
that
will
hopefully
be
coming
eventually.
That's
that's
my
long-term
vision
for
the
api,
but
I
think
it
will
take
a
while.
A
Yeah,
which
you've
added
the
comment
on
about
the
cla.
I
currently
have
the
ability
to
force
that
in
if
I
wanted
to,
but
considering
we're
going
to
move
the
api.
I
just
add
the
last
comment.
I
might
wait
because
at
the
moment
this
is
merging
two
separate
repos
in
and
if
we
move
the
api,
that's
just
gonna
cause
a
little
bit
of
grief
that,
if
I
could
avoid,
I
will
I
pivoted
back
to
it
some
internal
work
anyway.
A
B
A
But
it
shouldn't
be
too
bad
so
effectively
the
only
script
changes
I
say:
don't
bother
dragging
in
the
hotel,
js
api.
Everything
should
get
merged
in
its
in
statue
and
then
it's
really.
The
second
part
where
it
starts
to
move
them
around
is
is
the
bit
where
I
think
I
just
want
to
wait
for
that.
B
Yeah,
I
think
contrib
is
something
that
once
we
once
we
get
through
the
metrics
ga
we're
going
to
have
to
focus
on
on
some
some
contrib
repo
cleanup
anyways.
Now
that
rano's
back
is
probably
a
good
time
for
that.
So
I
think
that
will
be
coming
in
in
short
order
here
as
well.
B
Those
were
all
the
topics
that
I
had
on
the
agenda.
It's
only
been
15
or
20
minutes.
If
anybody
else
has
anything
that
they
would
like
to
bring
up
now
is
the
time.
B
Okay,
then
I
guess
let's
look
at
our
untriaged
bugs
here,
not
sure
what
oh
it's,
because
it
doesn't
have
a
priority
label
metric
exporter
and
arable
are
missing
and
noticed
ka032.
B
B
I
don't
believe
any
of
the
documentation
points
to
the
old
version,
but
there
is
no
migration
docs
or
something-
and
there
probably
should
be
everything
else
is
already
assigned-
looks
like
they're
all
assigned
to
me.
So
I
need
to
spend
some
time
on
this
later
starting
next
week.
I
think
I
want
to
start
applying
the
same
process
to
the
contributory
bill,
so
I
guess
come
prepared
for
that
next
week,
but
for
now
I
guess
that
was
all
I
had.